CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 septembre 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 210 August-September 2017 Bozza v. Italy - 17739/09 Judgment 14.9.2017 [Section I] Article 6 Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Failure to take execution stage of proceedings into account when determining start of limitation period for length-of-proceedings claim: violation Facts – At the close of judicial proceedings lodged in 1994 against the National Social Security Agency concerning the recalculation of a pension, the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour on appeal, which became final in January 2004. As the amount due had not been paid by the authorities, she obtained an attachment order from the enforcement judge in January 2005. The “Pinto” remedy subsequently requested by the applicant in May 2005 to obtain compensation for the length of the proceedings was declared out of time on the grounds that the “final domestic decision” to be taken into account when determining the starting point of the limitation period (six months) was not the decision of the enforcement judge but the decision on the merits. In its recent case-law the Court of Cassation had reversed that is approach – which separated the merits and the execution – in favour of a global assessment of what constituted a reasonable time. Law – This case essentially concerned the questions: (i)   whether, in the procedural framework of the “Pinto” remedy, the decision by the enforcement judge could be considered as the “final domestic decision” in the main proceedings within the meaning of Article   35 of the Convention; and (ii)   if so, whether the dismissal of the claim for just satisfaction by the “Pinto” courts had amounted to a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, within the meaning of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. (a)     Admissibility Article   35 § 1 ( six-month time-limit ): The Government’s preliminary objection that the application had been out of time was added to the merits and dismissed for the reasons set out below. (b)     Merits Article   6 § 1 ( reasonable time ): Although it was not completely aligned with the Strasbourg Court’s case-law, the change in approach introduced by the Court of Cassation in 2016 was consistent with a global assessment of the length of the proceedings. At the time of the present case, however, the Italian courts observed a strict separation between the proceedings on the merits and the execution proceedings. The present case concerned a judgment against the State. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, there had therefore been no requirement for the applicant to institute any enforcement proceedings: once the judgment had become binding and enforceable in January 2004 as the respondent authorities knew or ought to have known that they were required to pay the applicant the amount due. Execution of the judgment had not posed any particular difficulties. In the absence of spontaneous payment by the authorities, the right asserted by the applicant had became effective only when the enforcement judge imposed the attachment order. In consequence, it was the decision of the enforcement judge that had to be regarded as the “final domestic decision” in the main proceedings. As to the length of the “proceedings” as understood in this overall framework (from 1994 to 1998, then from 1999 to 2005), its excessive nature was evident from well-established criteria in the Court’s case-law and its conclusions in numerous similar cases. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41: EUR 3,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes