[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MANIERI v. ITALY - 12053/86 [1992] ECHR 26 (27 February 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/26.html Cite as: [1992] ECHR 26

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Manieri v. Italy*,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with

Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the relevant

provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the

following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr B. Walsh,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr A.N. Loizou,

Mr J.M. Morenilla,

Mr F. Bigi,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 October 1991 and

24 January 1992,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 6/1991/258/329. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating

applications to the Commission.

** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came

into force on 1 January 1990.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court on 8 March 1991 by the

European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), within the

three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47

(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an

application (no. 12053/86) against the Italian Republic lodged with

the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national,

Mrs Anna Aurora Manieri, on 30 December 1985.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44,

art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Italy recognised the

compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The

object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the

facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its

obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with

Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that

she wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer

who would represent her (Rule 30).

3. On 23 April 1991 the President of the Court decided that,

pursuant to Rule 21 para. 6 and in the interests of the proper

administration of justice, this case and the cases of Diana, Ridi,

Casciaroli, Mastrantonio, Idrocalce S.r.l., Owners' Services Ltd,

Cardarelli, Golino, Taiuti, Maciariello, Manifattura FL, Steffano,

Ruotolo, Vorrasi, Cappello, G. v. Italy, Caffè Roversi S.p.a.,

Andreucci, Gana, Barbagallo, Cifola, Pandolfelli and Palumbo, Arena,

Pierazzini, Tusa, Cooperativa Parco Cuma, Serrentino, Cormio,

Lorenzi, Bernardini and Gritti and Tumminelli* should be heard by

the same Chamber.

_______________

* Cases nos. 3/1991/255/326 to 5/1991/257/328; 7/1991/259/330 to

13/1991/265/336; 15/1991/267/338; 16/1991/268/339; 18/1991/270/341;

20/1991/272/343; 22/1991/274/345; 24/1991/276/347; 25/1991/277/348;

33/1991/285/356; 36/1991/288/359; 38/1991/290/361; 40/1991/292/363

to 44/1991/296/367; 50/1991/302/373; 51/1991/303/374;

58/1991/310/381; 59/1991/311/382; 61/1991/313/384

_______________

4. The Chamber to be constituted for this purpose included ex

officio Mr C. Russo, the elected judge of Italian nationality

(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the

President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On the same day, in

the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names

of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher,

Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr I. Foighel, Mr J.M. Morenilla and Mr F. Bigi (Article 43 in fine

of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

Subsequently, Mr B. Walsh, Mr A.N. Loizou and Mr N. Valticos,

substitute judges, replaced respectively Mr Pinheiro Farinha and

Sir Vincent Evans, who had both resigned and whose successors had

taken up their duties before the hearing, and Mr Foighel, who was

unable to take part in the further consideration of the case

(Rules 2 para. 3, 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).

5. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber

(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the

Agent of the Italian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of

the Commission and the applicant's lawyer on the organisation of the

proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made

in consequence, the Registrar received the applicant's claims for

just satisfaction (Article 50 of the Convention) (art. 50)

on 4 April and 17 June 1991 and the Government's memorial on

16 July. By a letter received on 22 August, the Secretary to the

Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit

oral observations.

6. On 28 August the Commission produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the

President's instructions.

7. In accordance with the decision of the President - who had

given the applicant leave to use the Italian language

(Rule 27 para. 3) -, the hearing took place in public in the Human

Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 29 October 1991. The Court had held

a preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr G. Raimondi, magistrato,

seconded to the Diplomatic Legal

Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Co-Agent,

Mr G. Manzo, magistrato, seconded to the

Ministry of Justice,

Mrs A. Passannanti, magistrato, seconded

to the Ministry of Justice, Counsel;

(b) for the Commission

Mr J.A. Frowein, Delegate;

(c) for the applicant

Mr L. Rossi, avvocato, Counsel.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Raimondi and Mrs Passannanti for the

Government, by Mr Frowein for the Commission and by Mr Rossi for the

applicant, as well as their answers to its question.

8. On 5 November the Commission filed its observations on the

applicant's claims for just satisfaction (Article 50 of the

Convention) (art. 50), on which the Government had already commented

in their memorial.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mrs Anna Aurora Manieri is an Italian national and resides

in Rome. She is a shopkeeper. The facts established by the

Commission pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the

Convention are as follows (paragraphs 16-18 of its report):

"16. By a writ against Mr P. before the Teramo District Court

dated 23 March 1983, the applicant applied on her own behalf and on

behalf of her brother and sisters to regain possession of the real

property which they had inherited following the death of their

mother and then their father and which was held by Mr P. as managing

agent.

17. The investigation began at the hearing of 31 May 1983.

Following that date, six other hearings took place on

4 November 1983, 17 January, 15 May, 6 November and 4 December 1984

and 12 March 1985. During the investigation, the second wife of the

applicant's father intervened in the proceedings claiming ownership

of the property in dispute in accordance with the American law of

succession, which the claimant contended was applicable to the case

on the ground of the deceased's American citizenship. Extensive

documentation, some originating from the United States, was included

in the case-file.

18. The investigation of the case was concluded on 16 July 1985

and the case was referred to the appropriate chamber of the court.

The hearing before it, fixed for 25 November 1986, was postponed on

six occasions in succession until 4 April 1989 owing to the transfer

of the investigating judge.

19. ... ."

10. According to the information supplied to the European Court

by the participants in the Strasbourg proceedings, on that latter

date the Teramo District Court remitted the case to the

investigating judge for further inquiries to be undertaken. As a

result of that officer's subsequent transfer, the hearing which was

to have taken place on 9 January 1990 was not held until 6 April, on

which date the parties contested the accounts and requested that the

managing agent be replaced. The judge reserved his decision and

invited them to produce various documents.

On 21 September 1990 Mr Antonio Manieri (junior) intervened in the

proceedings and requested time to submit his application in due form

and to produce documents. On 19 October 1990 the parties filed

their memorials and repeated their request for Mr P. to be replaced.

The judge allowed this request on 18 July 1991; he appointed

Mr Massimo Manieri and set the hearing down for 4 October 1991. The

Court has no information concerning the subsequent course of the

proceedings.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. Mrs Manieri lodged her application with the Commission on

30 December 1985. She complained of the length of the civil

proceedings brought by her and relied on Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention.

12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12053/86) admissible. In its report of 15 January 1991

(Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the unanimous opinion that

there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The

full text of the Commission's opinion is reproduced as an annex to

this judgment*.

_______________

* Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will

appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 229-D

of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the

Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

_______________

FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT BY THE GOVERNMENT

13. At the hearing the Government confirmed the submission put

forward in their memorial, in which they requested the Court to hold

"that there [had] been no violation of the Convention in the present

case".

AS TO THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)

14. The applicant claimed that her civil action had not been

tried within a "reasonable time" as required under Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by

[a] ... tribunal ..."

The Government disputed this view, whereas the Commission

accepted it.

15. The period to be taken into consideration began on

23 March 1983 when the proceedings were instituted against Mr P. in

the Teramo District Court. It has not yet ended because that court

has still to give judgment.

16. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be

assessed with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's

case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in

this instance call for an overall assessment.

17. The Government invoked the complexity of the facts and the

legal issues and the transfer of two investigating judges. The

applicant complained of the failure of the Italian State to organise

properly the system of civil justice and maintained that her own

conduct had had no effect on the length of the proceedings.

18. The Court recognises that the case was one of some

complexity, which was increased following the intervention of the

second wife of the applicant's father and that of Mr Antonio Manieri

(junior); the former's intervention raised the question of the

determination of the applicable law (see paragraph 9 above, no. 17).

On the other hand, there were three periods of stagnation, namely

from 16 July 1985 to 4 April 1989, then from that date

until 6 April 1990 and finally from 19 October 1990 to 18 July 1991.

The Government have not given any explanation for that last period.

In respect of the other two, and in particular the first of them,

the length of which - almost four years - appears incomprehensible,

they cited the transfer of two judges, but Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise

their legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of

its requirements (see, inter alia, the Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of

24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17).

19. Accordingly, the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" in this

instance a lapse of time of almost nine years for only one level of

jurisdiction.

There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1).

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)

20. According to Article 50 (art. 50):

"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal

authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is

completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising

from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party

allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of

this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if

necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

21. Mrs Manieri claimed in the first place one thousand million

Italian lire for damage.

In the Government's contention, she failed to show the existence of

a causal connection between the alleged violation and any pecuniary

damage which she may have sustained. As to non-pecuniary damage, a

finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction

for the purposes of Article 50 (art. 50).

22. The Court agrees with that opinion as regards the first

point, but considers that the applicant must have suffered

non-pecuniary damage for which the Court, making an assessment on an

equitable basis, awards her 20,000,000 lire.

B. Costs and expenses

23. The applicant also sought 2,609,500 lire and 845 French

francs for costs incurred before the Convention organs.

Having regard to the evidence at its disposal and to its case-law in

this field, the Court awards her the sum claimed in its entirety.

C. Interest

24. The Commission invited the Court to fix for the Government

- who did not give their opinion - a compulsory time-limit for

executing the present judgment and to make provision for the payment

of interest in the event of their failure to comply therewith.

25. The first of these proposals is in conformity with a

practice followed by the Court since October 1991.

As to the second, the Court does not consider it appropriate to

require any payment of interest in this instance, particularly as no

such request was made by the applicant.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1);

2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant,

within three months, 20,000,000 (twenty million) Italian lire for

non-pecuniary damage and 2,609,500 (two million six hundred and nine

thousand five hundred) lire and 845 (eight hundred and forty-five)

French francs for costs and expenses;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in

the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 February 1992.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar