CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 26 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 42111/14 Mario PICCIONI against Italy lodged on 23 May 2014 communicated on 9 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a public manager, was dismissed by the Ministry of Justice according to Article 19 of Legislative Decree no. 165/2001 (so-called ‘spoils system’). He brought a civil action challenging the dismissal and seeking reinstatement. On 25 May 2010 the Rome Court of Appeal declared the dismissal null and void and ordered the applicant’s reinstatement for the remaining term of his contract. The Ministry did not appeal against the judgment, which became final. However, it did not reinstate the applicant to his post. The applicant started enforcement proceedings ( giudizio di ottemperanza ) before the administrative courts. Both the Latium Regional Administrative Court and the Council of State rejected the applicant’s request for enforcement and stated that it was not possible to reinstate him since the date initially established for the end of his contract had already expired. The applicant complains that national authorities failed to enforce the final judgment of the Rome Court of Appeal ordering his reinstatement. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant suffered of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the non-enforcement of the final judgment of the Rome Court of Appeal ordering the applicant’s reinstatement impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nicola Silvestri v.   Italy , no. 16861/02, §§ 58-62, 9 June 2009, Ştefanescu v.   Romania , no.   9555/03, §§ 22-26, 11 October 2007, Akhundov v.   Azerbaijan , no.   39941/07, §§ 31-37, 3 February 2011 and Krndija and Others v.   Serbia , nos.   30723/09 and 3 others, §§ 66-72, 27 June 2017)?