FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 10315/22 Natasa GRBEC against Italy and 17 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 September 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President , Lətif Hüseynov, Ivana Jelić , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants were represented by N. Zampieri, a lawyer practising in Schio (Vicenza). They are heirs of persons who performed functions of administrative assistants, collaborators, technical assistants, and administrative officers in schools.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the application of retrospective legislation (Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005) to pending national proceedings were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged that the applicants are heirs of the persons identified in the appended table and they further accepted that there had been the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present applications. The Government offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.

The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law against Italy emphasising that the adoption of Law no. 266/2005 which definitively and retroactively settled the merits of the pending dispute between the applicants and the State and rendered futile any continuation of the proceedings was not justified by overriding reasons of general interest (see, for example, Cicero and Others v. Italy , nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, §§ 31-33, 30 January 2020; De Rosa and Others v. Italy , nos. 52888/08 and 13 others, §§ 48-54, 11 December 2012; and Agrati and Others v. Italy , nos. 43549/08, 6107/09 and 5087/09, §§ 59-66, 7 June 2011). When the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it held that the applicants had suffered a real loss of opportunity and that, consequently, the violations found were likely to have caused the applicants material damage. The Court also considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for the non ‑ pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants (see De Rosa and Others , cited above, §§ 60-62).

Noting the admissions and undertakings contained in the Government’s declarations, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 October 2023.

Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(Legislative interference)

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Date of receipt of

Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s comments

Amount awarded for pecuniary damage

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [2]

10315/22

10/02/2022

Natasa GRBEC

1973

15/06/2023

17/07/2023

The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Natasa Grbec and Michel Grbec, heirs of Claudio GRBEC, in execution of judgment no. 173/04 of the Trieste District Court, R.G. 82/02, 04/05/2004.

50

10488/22

10/02/2022

Michel GRBEC

1975

10319/22

10/02/2022

Jan VOLCIC

1974The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Jan Volcic and Roberto Volcic, heirs of Maria STREKELI, in execution of judgment of the Trieste District Court, R.G. 84/02, 04/05/2004.

10384/22

11/02/2022

Robert VOLCIC

1977

10322/22

10/02/2022

Emiliano ELISI

1974The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Emiliano Elisi and Tullia Pascutto, heirs of Roberto ELISI, in execution of judgment of the Trieste District Court, R.G. 81/02, 04/05/2004.

10330/22

10/02/2022

Tullia PASCUTTO

1947

10333/22

11/02/2022

Mauro MANFROI

1969The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Mauro Manfroi, Marta Manfroi and Elena Manfroi, heirs of Maria SIRENA, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 93/05 of the Belluno District Court, R.G. 232/04, 13/06/2005 if not already enforced.

10357/22

11/02/2022

Marta MANFROI

1974

10359/22

11/02/2022

Elena MANFROI

1974

24451/22

02/05/2022

Ferdinando BUSETTO

1951The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Ferdinando Busetto and Federico Silvio Busetto, heirs of Tiziana SARTORE, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 274/05 of the Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1171/04, 1175/04, 1177/04, 1179/04, 1211/04, 1219/04, 28/08/2005 and which the applicants returned, provided that they give proof of the restitution.

25498/22

02/05/2022

Federico Silvio BUSETTO

1989

24924/22

28/04/2022

Manuel TOMMASIN

1986The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Manuel Tommasin, Cristian Tommasin, Balinda Tommasin and Kety Tommasin, heirs of Graziella TOMMASIN, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 48/05 Venezia District Court, R.G. 996/03, 18/01/2005 if not already enforced.

25000/22

28/04/2022

Cristian TOMMASIN

1975

25209/22

28/04/2022

Balinda TOMMASIN

1970

24549/22

28/04/2022

Kety TOMMASIN

1967

24996/22

28/04/2022

Massimo RIGHETTO

1967The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Massimo Righetto, Sabrina Righetto and Nicola Righetto, heirs of Ernesta FASOLATO, 40% of the sums awarded by the first-instance judgment of the Venezia District Court, R.G. 1830/04, 04/11/2005 if not already enforced.

25070/22

28/04/2022

Sabrina RIGHETTO

1968

25491/22

28/04/2022

Nicola RIGHETTO

1969[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.