FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34963/18 Antonio MARZANO against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 1 February 2024 as a Committee composed of:

Péter Paczolay , President , Gilberto Felici, Raffaele Sabato , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 July 2018,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Antonio Marzano, born in 1935, was represented by Mr L. Potenza, a lawyer practising in Presicce.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the legislative interference with pending proceedings through the enactment of law no. 296 of 2006 was communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Italian Government recognize that the Applicant was subjected to the conventional violations as he claims, according to the principles expressed by the Court of Human Rights in this context.

The Italian Government, with this declaration, offer to pay to the Applicant, the all ‑ inclusive sums of € 3.578,00, to cover any damage suffered and legal expenses and costs, calculated as follows:

a) € o 578,00 for material damage;

b) € o 2.500,00 for non-material damage;

c) a lump sum of € o 500,00 for costs and expenses of litigation.

In particular, the amount indicated sub a) represents difference between 5% of the theoretical cumulated amount and the actual cumulated amount.

For the purposes of the calculation procedure, the actual and theoretical pension amounts for each year were evaluated. The theoretical amounts were calculated on the basis of the salaries actually received in Switzerland, instead of those re-proportioned using the ratio between the pension rates in force in Italy and Switzerland.

...

The Government believe that this declaration, containing the acknowledgement of the abovementioned violations and the provision of a refund, represents an adequate compensation for the claimant.

The Government respectfully invite the Court to declare that it is not necessary to prosecute the exam of the violations alleged by the claimant and dismiss the case in application of Article 37 of the Convention, given that the conditions established by Article 62A of the Rules of Court are respected.

The Government will proceed to pay the sum offered with the present declaration within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from 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 case.”

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration on 3 November 2023. The Court has not received any response.

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 applicant wishes the examination of the case 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 concerning complaints relating to the legislative interference with pending proceedings through the enactment of law no. o 296 of 2006 (see, for example, Maggi and Others v. Ital y , nos. o 46286/09 and 4 others, 31 May 2011, Cataldo and Others v. Italy , nos. o 54425/08 and 5 others, 24 June 2014 and Stefanetti and Others v. Italy , nos. o 21838/10 and 7 others, 15 April 2014).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

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

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 February 2024.

Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay Acting Deputy Registrar President