CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 septembre 1996

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. September 1996 Zappia v. Italy - 24295/94 Judgment 26.9.1996 Article 6 Civil proceedings Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings followed by enforcement proceedings: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ("REASONABLE TIME") A.   Government's preliminary objection (application submitted out of time) Not necessary for Court to express view on difference of opinion among legal writers as to whether under Italian law enforcement proceedings are autonomous - Court's task to decide whether, and if so when, right asserted by applicants actually became effective - that moment constituted determination of a civil right and therefore the final decision for purposes of Article 26. From 21 July 1977 onwards applicants had actively sought to conclude case, but on 26 January 1996 the expert had still not filed his additional report - faced with inertia of judge responsible for enforcement, they had applied to European Commission of Human Rights on 15 May 1993. Enforcement proceedings to be regarded as second stage of proceedings on merits - latter not covered in present case by Italian declaration recognising right of individual petition; Court not informed by date of adoption of judgment of any final decision within meaning of Article 26 in fine of Convention. Conclusion : objection dismissed (eight votes to one). B.   Merits of complaint 1.   Period to be considered Starting-point: date when Italian declaration recognising right of individual petition took effect. End: proceedings pending. Total: already more than twenty-three years. 2.   Applicable criteria Applicants' conduct: responsible for waiting four years before commencing enforcement proceedings, and for three adjournments - this alone did not explain the length of the proceedings. Conduct of relevant authorities: no fewer than thirteen adjournments, sometimes because judge had been transferred, sometimes ordered by court of its own motion or with no reasons given and sometimes because registry was not functioning correctly - in addition, supplementary expert report still not filed at registry - an expert works in context of judicial proceedings supervised by a judge, who remains responsible for preparation and speedy conduct of trial. Case not particularly complex. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses: allowed in part. Conclusion : State to pay applicants specified sum (eight votes to one).   © 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