Last Updated on January 11, 2024 by LawEuro
European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 10393/22)
The application concerns the non-enforcement of a decision awarding compensation for the excessive length of judicial proceedings under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act” (“Pinto” decision) issued by the Perugia Court of Appeal on 8 May 2017 (R.G. no. 518/2012).
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of the above domestic decision in her favour.
The Government contended that the applicant had failed to submit a declaration containing the necessary information for the authorities to proceed to the payment of the judgment debt, as well as supporting documents. They contended that such documents must be submitted in order to issue the payment of sums awarded by “Pinto” decisions, as required under Article 5 sexies of the Pinto Act (see paragraph 4 above).
The European Court of Human Rights noted the following:
The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments.
The Court further notes that the decision in the present application ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court reiterates that a successful litigant may be required to undertake certain procedural steps in order to recover the judgment debt, be it during a voluntary execution of a judgment by the State or during its enforcement by compulsory means. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable that the authorities request the applicant to produce additional documents, such as bank details, to allow or speed up the execution of a judgment. The creditor’s uncooperative behaviour may be an obstacle to timely enforcement of a judgment, thus alleviating the authorities’ responsibility for delays. In fact, while the primary responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against the State lies with the authorities, they cannot comply with their obligations without the applicants’ minimal cooperation to that effect.
The Court notes that the requirement for the creditor to submit the declaration indicating the relevant domestic decision, the sum that the authorities are still required to pay and the preferred method of payment as well as bank details is set out in Article 5 sexies of the Pinto Act. The Court takes note of the Government’s statement that this option is meant to facilitate and accelerate the payment of judicial awards by the State.
The Court agrees with the Government that the obligation to send the declaration and supporting documents under Article 5 sexies of the Pinto Act constitutes a reasonable procedural step which is required of the creditor in order to obtain sums awarded by “Pinto” decisions. The failure of the creditor to comply with this obligation constitutes an obstacle to enforcement of the decision in his favour, for which the authorities cannot be held responsible.
However, in the present case, the Court notes that the applicant submitted evidence to the Court showing that she had filed the relevant declaration under Article 5 sexies of the Pinto Act. The Court therefore finds that the applicant complied with the requirement of cooperation and cannot therefore be blamed for the lack of execution of the “Pinto” decision.
Still, the Court will take into consideration the date of the applicant’s submission of the declaration as the starting date of the non-enforcement period, that is 26 March 2018.
In the leading cases of Gaglione and Others v. Italy (nos. 45867/07 and others, 21 December 2010) and Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, (no. 23563/07, 6 March 2012), the Court already found a violation in respect of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” decisions.
Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant’s favour, which remains unenforced.
These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
CASE OF UTZERI v. ITALY (European Court of Human Rights) 10393/22. Full text of the document.
Leave a Reply