This post contains a round-up of caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) relating to complaints brought against Italy.
CASE OF FARINA AND OTHERS VS. ITALY
Judgement: May 16th, 2024
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
The case originated from various applications against Italy complaining of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the impossibility of lodging an application under Law No. 89 of March 24, 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, pending the main proceedings. The Pinto act sets the right to seek fair compensation for the damage suffered because of the unreasonable length of a trial.
Applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court had not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level and considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
The court unanimously held that there had been a violation of the Convention, and held that the respondent State is to pay the applicants within three months.
The list of applicants raising complaints ranged from proceedings lasting between 7 and 28 years.
CASE OF BARONE V. ITALY
Judgement: June 1, 2023
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
The case concerns the indirect expropriation of a plot of land in Palermo, owned by the applicant and his uncle. In 1988, the land was urgently occupied by the Region of Sicily in order to build a church. The church was built, however no expropriation order issued by March 22 1993, that is within 5 years following the beginning of the occupation.
The Court awarded the claimants (the applicant and his uncle) compensation along with inflation adjustment and statutory interest from March 1993 as damages for the loss of the property. The court’s judgement was issued on November 4, 2003 and was not appealed against thus becoming final on December 20, 2004. After the decision was made final, it was revealed that the applicant’s uncle was already deceased when the proceedings were initiated, so the decision was then declared null and void as to the part concerning the uncle.
The applicant lodged an application under the Pinto Act, and under Article 6 ECHR complaining of the excessive length of the proceedings and was awarded €6750 as compensation. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol 1 about the unlawful deprivation of his property coupled with an award of compensation allegedly not reasonably related to the market value.
The applicant passed away in 2014 and had the wish of his heirs to continue the proceedings in his stead, as well as any objection to that wish on the government’s part.
Regarding Article 6, the court argued that the sum awarded to the applicant as non-pecuniary damage for the length of the proceedings is the amount which would have been awarded by the Court. The court unanimously held there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 and that remainder of the application was inadmissible. The Court also declared that the heirs do have standing to continue the proceedings in the stead of the late applicant.
CASE OF DARBOE AND CAMARA V. ITALY
Judgement: July 21st, 2022
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
A Guinean national arrived in Italy and sought asylum claiming to be an unaccompanied minor. He declared his minor age and intention to apply for international protection shortly after arrival, however no information on how to initiate the relevant procedure had been provided to him and no request for international protection had been lodged in his case. He was initially placed in a centre for foreign accompanied minors, but then was transferred to an overcrowded adult reception centre lacking facilities and healthcare. A month after the transfer, a medical examination was carried out which concluded his age was 18 and his stay in the adult reception centre lasted more than four months.
There was no indication that his claims of being a minor had been unfounded or unreasonable and the national authorities had failed to promptly provide the applicant with a legal guardian or representative. The Italian authorities failed to apply the principle of presumption of minor age, which was an inherent element of the protection of the right to respect for private life. The court unanimously held there had been a violation of Article 8.
CASE OF PARADISO AND CAMPANELLI V. ITALY
Judgement: January 24th, 2017
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
A couple who could not conceive after unsuccessful attempts at in vitro fertilization and a long wait of adopting in Italy decided to go to a clinic in Russia to pay for a surrogate. The child was born in February 2011, by the surrogate mother in Russia and written consent was given to have the child registered as the applicants’ son. The necessary documents were obtained from the Italian Consulate in Moscow to obtain the documents that would allow the baby to go to Italy with his mother and they arrived in Italy. A few days later, they contacted the Colletorto municipality to request that the particulars of the birth certificate be entered in the register. Upon doing a genetic test, the child did not have the DNA of either parents, by error of the clinic in Moscow, which resulted in the Italian authorities starting a formal investigation for “altering civil status” and forgery. The child was taken away from the applicants and placed in a children’s home and in January 2013, the child was adopted by a different family.
It was judged that there was an interference with the applicants’ private and family life. The Court considered that the child would have developed closer emotional ties with his intended parents should he have stayed with them longer, and the national authorities interrupted the relationship from developing.
The case was later referred to the Grand Chamber in 2017 and the Court decided that the national interests to prevent illegality and protect public order prevailed over the applicants’ right to private life and concluded that there was no violation of article 8.
CASE OF SEJDOVIC V. ITALY
Judgement: March 1, 2006
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
The applicant was accused of murder, and as the police authorities could not trace his whereabouts, he was declared a fugitive and a court hearing took place in the absence of the accused. He was found guilty and convicted but was later found and arrested in Germany two and a half years later. The German authorities refused a request by Italy for his extradition, on the grounds that Italian law did not guarantee that the proceedings conducted in his absence could be reopened.
The applicant complained that his conviction without having had the opportunity to present his defence violated his right to a fair trial. Before the arrest, he had not received any official information about the charges or the date of his trial. It had not been shown that he had sufficient knowledge of his prosecution or the charges against him, so it could not therefore be concluded that he had sought to evade trial or had unequivocally waived his right to appear in court. Since he was tried in absentia, there was no guarantee that he would be able to have the opportunity of appearing at a new trial.
There was a unanimous decision that there was a violation of Article 6. The unjustified obstacle to the applicant’s right to a fresh determination by a court of the of the merits of the charge against him appeared to result from the wording of the provisions of the CCP (i punti critici di controllo) in force at the time, which might suggest there had been a defect in the Italian legal system. After the applicant’s trial had ended, various legislative reforms have been implemented in Italy.
CASE OF EDOARDO PALUMBO V. ITALY
Judgement: November 30th, 2000
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The applicant was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he leased to a tenant. A writ was served on the tenant on October 13, 1983, communicating his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. The Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by December 31, 1984. There were numerous unsuccessful attempts in 1986 of a bailiff attempting to evict the tenant without police assistance. On March 6,1987, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently needed the premises for himself. On April 21 and May 28, 1987, a bailiff made two other unsuccessful attempts to evict the tenant. On June 24, 1987, the applicant was granted police assistance in evicting his tenant, however the tenant claimed to be ill, there was no doctor available to verify these allegations. The bailiff arranged to make his next visit on July 14, 1987, however police assistance was not granted. The applicant finally recovered possession of his flat in June 1992.
The Court maintained that he had not exhausted domestic remedies in that he had failed to issue proceedings in the administrative courts challenging the refusal of police assistance. The applicant complained about the prolonged impossibility of recovering possession of his apartment and for many years, the applicant was left in a state of uncertainty as to when he would be able to repossess his apartment. The Court unanimously held that there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
