Liuzzi and Others v. Italy
Struck out of the list
Berörda konventionsartiklar
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 10399/22 Eustacchio LIUZZI and Others against Italy and 8 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 May 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková , President , Gilberto Felici, Raffaele Sabato , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above ‑ mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The Government also undertook to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decisions under consideration in the cases concerned (see appended table) within the same three-month period, and to pay any costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings.
The payment and the enforcement of the domestic decisions in the cases concerned will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions (see, for example, Gaglione and Others v. Italy, nos. 45867/07 and 69 others, 21 December 2010, and Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, 6 March 2012).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 June 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions)
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Relevant
domestic
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros) [1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros) [2]
10399/22
09/02/2022
(3 applicants)
Eustacchio LIUZZI
1950
Antonio GENCHI
1947
Giovanni Francesco GENCHI
1948
Romito Domenico
Bari
Lecce Court
of Appeal
R.G.
1950/2015,
12/01/2017
05/01/2023
200
30
12592/22
25/02/2022
(26 applicants)
Girolamo Adriano IZZO
1970
Livio TONNI
1956
Corrado TURELLA
1956
Stefano RUSSO
1964
Luca ROSSI
1971
Pierluigi RUSCA
1960
Alessandro MICOZZI
1964
Flavio MARIANI
1956
Pasquale LO IACONO
1966
Emilio GUIDA
1964
Remo GIOVANNETTI
1962
David DE BELLIS
1970
Fabio TUZI
1972
Giorgio PATTI
1972
Lucio MALATESTA
1956
Giuseppe Nunzio CASABONA
1958
Celestino CARENZA
1970
Lombardino DI STEFANO
1968
Tonino DI CICCO
1961
Osvaldo D’ARCANGELO
1962
Sergio D’ALESSANDRO
1965
Massimo VECE
1963
Ciro TRAMONTANO
1956
Marco MAZZALUPI
1974
Marco DE LAURENTIS
1963
Roberto D’ANGELI
1959
Alunni Marco
Rome
Perugia
Court of
Appeal,
R.G.
4845/2011,
11/07/2016
05/01/2023
200
30
15203/22
16/03/2022
(9 applicants)
Gianluca D’ALESSIO
1973
Carmine CUCCINIELLO
1936
Raffaele DI TELLA
1976
Stefano MANNOZZI
1974
Roberto DOMINICI
1976
Luciana MARRONI
1964
Achille MAZZARA
1947
Alberico FELEPPA
1962
Alessandro NAVARRA
1970
Alunni Marco
Rome
Perugia
Court of
Appeal
V.G.
4848/2011,
23/06/2016
05/01/2023
200
30
20484/22
17/03/2022
Maria SOMMA
1991
Coticelli Feliciana
Gragnano
Naples
Court of
Appeal R.G.
1487/2020,
27/05/2021
05/01/2023
200
30
20781/22
23/03/2022
Eugenia DE LUTIIS
1940
Coticelli Pasquale
Gragnano
Naples
Court of
Appeal R.G.
64/2020,
04/06/2020
05/01/2023
200
30
20786/22
26/02/2022
Carmela COMENTALE
1974
Coticelli Pasquale
Gragnano
Rome Court
of Appeal
R.G.
58878/2011,
30/01/2017
05/01/2023
200
30
24124/22
05/05/2022
Stefania LUBRANI
1952
Katte Klitsche de La Grange Teodoro
Rome
Perugia
Court of
Appeal R.G. 4437/2011,
05/01/2016
05/01/2023
200
30
31015/22
09/06/2022
Biagio GAETANI
1955
Pasca Antonio
Taviano
Potenza
Court of
Appeal
R.G.V.G.
315/2014,
09/10/2014
05/01/2023
200
30
31022/22
09/06/2022
(6 applicants)
Angelo MIRTO
1955
Romolo PODO
1956
Francesco REGGIO
1952
Giuseppe ROLLO
1951
Sergio STEFANO
1955
Antonio Francesco OSTUNI
1962
Pasca Antonio
Taviano
Potenza
Court of
Appeal
R.G.V.G.
315/2014,
09/10/2014
05/01/2023
200
30
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.