CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 janvier 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 93 January 2007 Di Salvo v. Italy (dec.) - 16098/05 Decision 11.1.2007 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-3 Abuse of the right of petition Applicant using in his observations offensive expressions   against Government's representative: inadmissible   In 1984 the applicant was convicted of perjury and given a suspended prison sentence. He subsequently applied for a review, alleging that he had discovered new evidence to prove that he was innocent, and the proceedings were reopened. In 2005, following his application for a review based on new evidence, the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction and acquitted him. The applicant, contending that under Italian law a person was entitled to compensation only when he or she had served a custodial sentence, complained of a breach of his right to compensation for wrongful conviction under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7, on account of the fact that he had been given a suspended sentence and had never served time. After notice of his application had been given, in his observations in reply to those of the Government the applicant made offensive remarks about the Government's co-Agent. For example, he claimed that the co-Agent had “malevolently sought to mislead the Court” and that his opinion was “motivated by self-interest and petty”. When asked by the Section Registrar to withdraw his insulting expressions the applicant refused, ignoring a warning that his application might be found inadmissible on account of its abusive nature. The Court examined the Government's observations without finding any expression in them that might, as the applicant had claimed, be regarded as offensive towards him. In his own observations, by contrast, the applicant, who was himself a lawyer, had engaged in a personal attack against the Government's representative and had used expressions that the Court considered to be insulting. Furthermore, in view of the Registrar's warning, the applicant had had the opportunity to withdraw from his observations all the expressions which, without affecting the merits of his arguments, formed a gratuitous and personal attack on the co-Agent. Instead of using that opportunity he had requested the Court to order the Government to indicate which expressions were allegedly offensive, whereas that had been made quite clear in the Registrar's letter. The applicant had subsequently carried on a pointless debate about the ethics of the Government's representative, reiterating his allegations that the co-Agent had deliberately inserted errors into his observations in order to provoke the other party. In the Court's view, the applicant's conduct was incompatible with the purpose of the right of individual application, as provided for in Articles 34 and 35, and constituted an abuse of that right within the meaning of Article 35(3): inadmissible .   © 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