Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

CASE OF VENDITTELLI v. ITALYJOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES WALSH, SPIELMANN, PALM AND LOIZOU

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: July 18, 1994

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF VENDITTELLI v. ITALYJOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES WALSH, SPIELMANN, PALM AND LOIZOU

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: July 18, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES WALSH, SPIELMANN, PALM AND LOIZOU

1. We regret that we cannot join with the majority of the Court in their judgment on the questions of whether there were breaches of Article 6 para . 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 combined with Article 6 para . 1 (P1-1, art. 6-1).

2. The stark fact is that the proceedings against the applicant in what, by any standards, was a simple case of whether or not there had been breach of the planning laws covered a period of four and a half years. Even allowing for the delay of about six months attributable to the applicant, we are of opinion that the time taken was inexcusable in the circumstances of the case, the most important of which was that during the period in question the applicant was locked out of his home by the public authorities, a situation which should have added some sense of urgency to the prosecuting and judicial authorities. We are satisfied that there has been a breach of Article 6 para . 1 (art. 6-1).

3. We agree with the majority of the Court that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) for the reasons stated by the Court.

4. In our opinion that breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is the direct result of and inextricably linked with the breach of Article 6 para . 1 (art. 6-1) and therefore there has also been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 combined with Article 6 para . 1 (P1-1, art. 6-1).

[*]  Note by the Registrar.  The case is numbered 24/1993/419/498. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]  Note by the Registrar.  For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 293-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 400211 • Paragraphs parsed: 44892118 • Citations processed 3448707