CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     367   3.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   (1)     Buffalo Srl in liquidation v. Italy (application no. 38746/97) Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Protection of property and delay in payment of tax rebates   The applicant, Buffalo Srl, is a limited liability company whose registered office is in Italy. It ceased trading in 1994. It is recorded in the companies register as being in voluntary liquidation since December 1994.   Between 1985 and 1992 the applicant company paid sums on account of corporation tax in excess of the amounts it owed the State. It was consequently entitled to tax rebates which the tax authorities started to repay in 1997. However, it has not yet been repaid the total amount due.   During that period the applicant company was forced to seek financing from banks and private individuals. It thereby incurred costs and had to pay interest at a higher rate than was paid by the State on the tax rebates.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company alleged that the tax authority’s delays in paying the rebates had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant company had possessed a pecuniary interest from the date the tax authority received its tax return until the date of reimbursement. That pecuniary interest constituted a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions was constituted by the delay in payment of the rebates. In that connection, the Court noted that the system of paying tax on account represented a significant burden for taxpayers and one that appeared to have been exacerbated by the authority’s delay in paying the rebates. In the case before it, the repayments had taken between 5 and 10 years as a result of delays attributable to the State. Nor could it be said that those delays had been compensated for by the payment of interest, as, in view of the size of the sums concerned, their prolonged unavailability had had a definite and considerable impact on the applicant company’s finances.   The delays in paying the tax rebates had created a state of uncertainty for the applicant company for more than what might be regarded as a reasonable period, without its being able to remedy the position. That interference with the applicant company’s possessions had been disproportionate, as the financial impact of the delays, coupled with the lack of any effective remedy to expedite matters and the uncertainty regarding when the rebates would be paid, had upset the fair balance that had to be maintained between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It reserved the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) in full, as it was not yet ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Friendly settlements (2)     Blasetti v. Italy (no. 48728/99) EUR 3,000 (EUR 1,500 to each applicant) (3)     Nuti v. Italy (no. 60662/00) EUR 6,200 (4)     Rogai v. Italy (no. 60661/00) EUR 6,200   The applicants in the above three Italian cases complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the amounts indicated are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English, except Nuti v. Italy which is available only in French.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.