[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SERRENTINO v. ITALY - 12295/86 [1992] ECHR 33 (27 February 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/33.html Cite as: [1992] ECHR 33

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Serrentino 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 51/1991/303/374. 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 19 April 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. 12295/86) against the Italian Republic lodged with

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

Mr Ignazio Serrentino, on 22 July 1986.

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 he

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

would represent him (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, Manieri, 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, Cormio, Lorenzi, Bernardini and Gritti and Tumminelli* should

be heard by the same Chamber.

_______________

* Cases nos. 3/1991/255/326 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; 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 23 April 1991, 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 memorial on

21 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 M. Miccoli, avvocato, Counsel.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Raimondi and Mrs Passannanti

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

Mr Miccoli for the applicant, as well as their answers to its

question.

8. On 10 October the Government had lodged their observations

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

Convention) (art. 50); on 5 November the Commission filed its

observations on those claims.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mr Ignazio Serrentino is an Italian national and resides at

Reggio Calabria. He is unemployed. The facts established by the

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

are as follows (paragraphs 17-26 of its report):

"17. On 10 October 1983 the applicant was involved in a

road accident and seriously injured.

18. By summons served on 11 September 1984, the

applicant took proceedings for damages before the Reggio

Calabria District Court against the owner and the driver of

the car which had knocked him down, and also against the X

insurance company.

19. The investigation opened at the hearing of

17 December 1984, followed by the hearing of

18 February 1985. On that date the parties requested

certain investigative steps, on which the investigating

judge ruled by order of 7 March 1985. The next hearing,

fixed for 3 June 1985, did not take place until

18 November 1985 when the investigating judge instructed an

expert to assess within sixty days the damage sustained by the

applicant.

20. The medical opinion was lodged with the registry on

20 January 1986. Its findings were that the accident had

caused the applicant 507 days' total incapacity for work and

295 days' partial incapacity, as well as permanently

impairing his fitness for work by 25%.

21. The hearings of 17 March and 12 May 1986 were

adjourned at the parties' request.

22. At the hearing of 7 July 1986, the parties made

their final submissions and the investigating judge referred

the case to the competent chamber of the court, fixing the

hearing for 25 November 1988. On 8 July 1986 the applicant,

pleading his insecure financial circumstances, requested an

earlier hearing date.

23. In accordance with this request, the hearing before

the court chamber took place on 12 December 1986. On

30 January 1987 the court declared the defendants jointly

and severally liable to pay the applicant damages of

64,467,590 Italian lire plus the statutory interest which

had accrued since 10 October 1983, and awarded costs against

them. The text of the judgment was lodged with the registry

on 27 March 1987.

24. On 29 May 1987 the X insurance company appealed

against the judgment. On 8 June 1987 the applicant also

filed an appeal, claiming higher compensation. The first

hearing before the investigating judge for the appeal

procedure took place on 22 October 1987. Four more hearings

took place on 14 January 1988 (when the parties requested an

adjournment in order to file their final submissions),

25 February 1988, 14 April 1988 (adjourned at the appellant

company's request, the applicant's counsel not being

present) and 26 May 1988. On that date, the case was

referred to the competent chamber of the Reggio Calabria

Court of Appeal.

25. At the hearing on 1 December 1988, the parties

requested an adjournment. The next hearing took place on

13 April 1989. By order of 20 April 1989, the Court of

Appeal found that notice of the appeal by the X insurance

company had not been given to the owner of the vehicle as a

party whose participation was required to settle the dispute

(litisconsorte necessario). The case was therefore referred

back to the investigating judge for the appeal procedure.

26. Four hearings before the said investigating judge

took place on 12 October 1989, 25 January 1990,

22 March 1990 and 28 June 1990, on which date the parties made

their final submissions. On 15 November 1990 the Appeal Court,

basing its decision on criteria differing to some extent

from those adopted by the lower court, assessed the damage

sustained by the applicant at 159,000,000 lire. The text of

the decision was lodged with the registry on 6 December 1990.

27. ... ."

10. According to the information supplied to the European Court

by the applicant, one of the defendants has appealed to the Court of

Cassation and the date of the hearing has not yet been fixed.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. Mr Serrentino lodged his application with the Commission on

22 July 1986. He complained of the length of the civil proceedings

brought by him and relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12295/86) admissible. In its report of 6 March 1991

(Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion by nine votes to

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

The full text of the Commission's opinion and of the dissenting

opinion contained in the report 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 231-F

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 his 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

11 September 1984 when the proceedings were instituted against the

person responsible for the accident and his insurance company. It

has not yet ended as the Court of Cassation 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 conduct of the applicant. He had

failed to display the diligence required in a civil trial.

18. In the Court's view the case is not a complex one. Despite

that, as the Commission and the applicant rightly pointed out, there

have been several periods of inactivity in the proceedings to date:

no investigative measures were taken for more than eight months

(7 March - 18 November 1985); more than five months elapsed before

the first hearing in the competent chamber of the Reggio Calabria

District Court (7 July - 12 December 1986); and the text of the

judgment was not filed with the registry for nearly two months

(30 January - 27 March 1987).

It is true that the parties were themselves responsible, at

first instance and then on appeal, for several delays resulting in a

total delay of about eleven months (see paragraph 9 above, nos. 21,

24 and 25), but at the applicant's request the District Court

brought forward the date of one hearing from 25 November 1988 to

12 December 1986, nearly two years (ibid., no. 23).

It should be noted finally that it took the Reggio Calabria

Court of Appeal almost two years to find that the appeal filed by

the X insurance company had not been notified to the owner of the

car in question (29 May 1987 - 20 April 1989). Yet under the

Italian Code of Civil Procedure the judicial authorities are

responsible for ensuring that such steps are properly carried out.

19. In these circumstances and in view of what was at stake for

the applicant, the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" in this

instance a lapse of time which already amounts to more than seven

years.

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. Mr Serrentino claimed in the first place one thousand

million Italian lire for damage.

22. There is no evidence that the violation found caused the

applicant pecuniary damage. On the other hand, he suffered non-

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

equitable basis, awards him 10,000,000 lire.

B. Costs and expenses

23. The applicant also sought 4,710,000 lire for the costs which

he claimed to have incurred before the Convention organs.

Having regard to the evidence at its disposal and to its

case-law in this field, the Court awards him 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, 10,000,000 (ten million) Italian lire

for non-pecuniary damage and 4,710,000 (four million seven

hundred and ten thousand) lire 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