[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ISTITUTO DI VIGILANZA v. ITALY - 13567/88 [1993] ECHR 44 (22 September 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1993/44.html Cite as: (1994) 18 EHRR 367, 18 EHRR 367, [1993] ECHR 44

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Istituto di Vigilanza 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 R. Bernhardt,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr I. Foighel,

Mr F. Bigi,

Mr A.B. Baka,

Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha,

Mr L. Wildhaber,

Mr J. Makarczyk,

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

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 June and 25 August 1993,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 42/1992/387/465. 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 by the European Commission

of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 11 December 1992. It originated

in an application (no. 13567/88) against the Italian Republic lodged

with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by

Istituto di Vigilanza, a company registered in Italy, on

25 November 1987.

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 company stated

that it wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the

lawyer who would represent it (Rule 30).

3. On 16 December 1992 the President of the Court decided, in the

interests of the proper administration of justice, that this case - and

the cases of Figus Milone and Goisis v. Italy* - should be examined by

the Chamber constituted to consider the case of Scopelliti v. Italy**

(Rule 21 para. 6). This Chamber 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)), the other seven members, drawn by lot in the

presence of the Registrar, being Mr N. Valticos, Mr I. Foighel,

Mr F. Bigi, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha, Mr L. Wildhaber

and Mr J. Makarczyk (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and

Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently, Mr R. Bernhardt, substitute

judge, replaced Mr Valticos, who was unable to take part in the further

consideration of the case (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).

_______________

* Cases nos. 43/1992/388/466 and 46/1992/391/469.

** Case no. 41/1992/386/464.

_______________

4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal,

acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Italian

Government ("the Government"), the applicant company's lawyer and the

Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings

(Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence,

the Registrar received memorials and observations from the applicant

company, the Government and the Delegate of the Commission on various

dates between 30 April and 19 July 1993.

5. On 16 March 1993 the Commission had produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the President's

instructions.

6. On 23 June 1993 the Chamber decided to dispense with a hearing

in the case, having satisfied itself that the conditions for this

derogation from its usual procedure had been met (Rules 26 and 38).

AS TO THE FACTS

7. Istituto di Vigilanza is a security firm whose headquarters are

in Turin.

On 26 October 1978 Mrs Figus Milone, a former employee, brought

proceedings against it in the Turin magistrate's court (pretore) for

unfair dismissal.

8. At the first hearing, on 28 November 1978, the magistrate

raised of his own motion the question whether certain legislative

provisions were compatible with the constitutional principle of

equality between men and women in the field of employment. On

19 December 1978 he stayed the proceedings pending the decision of the

Constitutional Court (Article 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

The Constitutional Court gave judgment on 16 January 1987; the

text of its judgment was filed at the registry on 22 January.

9. The plaintiff resumed the proceedings on 16 February 1987 and

they ended on 28 May with a friendly settlement.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

10. The applicant company applied to the Commission on

25 November 1987. It complained of the length of the proceedings

brought against it in the Turin magistrate's court and relied on

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.

11. The Commission declared the application (no. 13567/88)

admissible on 13 January 1992. In its report of 1 July 1992 (made

under 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 265-C of

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

Commission's report is available from the registry.

_______________

AS TO THE LAW

THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

12. In their memorial of 24 May 1993 the Government maintained at

the outset that the Commission had exceeded the time laid down by

Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention, which provides:

"If the question is not referred to the Court in accordance

with Article 48 (art. 48) of [the] Convention within a period

of three months from the date of the transmission of the

report to the Committee of Ministers, the Committee of

Ministers shall decide ... whether there has been a violation

of the Convention."

The Commission had referred the case to the Court only on

11 December 1992, whereas its report had been sent to the Committee of

Ministers on 10 September 1992. The Government therefore invited the

Court to consider the question of its jurisdiction to deal with the

case.

The applicant company expressed no view.

13. The Delegate of the Commission considered that the word

"referred" could be understood as meaning the date on which the

decision to refer the case to the Court was adopted - in this instance,

5 December 1992 - as well as the date on which the document bringing

the case before the Court was lodged. She wondered, however, whether

the Court needed to decide the question in the present case, since the

Government had not formally challenged the Court's jurisdiction and had

made detailed observations on the merits of the case.

14. The Court nevertheless considers itself bound to make a ruling

as the Government have clearly put the issue before it and have

expressly asked the Court to determine it.

The Court points out that by the terms of the French text of

Article 47 (art. 47), it may only "être saisie d'une affaire" (be

seised of a case) within the period of three months provided for in

Article 32 (art. 32). The use of the verb "saisir" appears to be

incompatible with the interpretation of the word "referred" that the

Delegate of the Commission seemed to be advocating. In order to seise

a court, it is not sufficient to decide to seise it. The decision must

be implemented. The same applies, moreover, to the word "refer".

Besides, any other reading of Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47

(art. 32-1, art. 47) would be likely to produce - as regards one of the

conditions to be satisfied by the Contracting States or even by

individuals, non-governmental organisations or groups of individuals

when applying to the Commission itself - results contrary to the letter

and spirit of Article 26 (art. 26) in fine and to the case-law

established in the matter from the very beginning.

That being so, the finding is inescapable that the Commission

exceeded - albeit by only one day - the time allowed it. Furthermore,

no special circumstance of a nature to suspend the running of time or

justify its starting to run afresh is apparent from the file.

The request bringing the case before the Court is consequently

inadmissible as it was made out of time.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Holds that it cannot deal with the merits of the case.

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

hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 September 1993.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar