The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision.<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Rummo Molino & Pastificio S.p.a. v. Italy,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Italy lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 24 January 2009.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant company was represented by Mr G. Romano, a lawyer practising in Benevento.<\/p>\n 3. The Italian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The applicant company\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision. It also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration proposing to pay a lump sum covering any and all damage as well as the legal costs and expenses sustained by the applicant company and invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.<\/p>\n 7. The applicant company disagreed with the terms of the declaration, arguing that the amount of compensation was insufficient, and that the Government had not undertaken to enforce the domestic judgment.<\/p>\n 8. Having studied the terms of the Government\u2019s unilateral declaration, the Court considers that the amount of compensation proposed does not constitute adequate and sufficient redress for the alleged violations of the applicant\u2019s rights under the Convention, given that it is substantially lower than the amount the applicant company ought to receive by virtue of the domestic judgment at issue (see Bursa Barosu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 and Others v.\u00a0Turkey, no. 25680\/05, \u00a7 133, 19 June 2018). In addition, the judgment in question has not yet been fully enforced. The Court thus considers that the proposed declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine). That being so, the Court rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its\u00a0examination of the admissibility and merits of the case (see Tahsin\u00a0Acar\u00a0v.\u00a0Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a075, ECHR\u00a02003\u2011VI).<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 9. The applicant company complained principally of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in its favour. It relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 10. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a \u201chearing\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a06. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v.\u00a0Greece, no.\u00a018357\/91, \u00a7\u00a040, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011II).<\/p>\n 11. In the leading cases of Ventorino v. Italy, no. 357\/07, 17 May 2011, De Trana v. Italy, no. 64215\/01, 16 October 2007, Nicola Silvestri v. Italy, no. 16861\/02, 9 June 2009, Antonetto v. Italy, no. 15918\/89, 20 July 2000 and De Luca v. Italy, no. 43870\/04, 24 September 2013, the Court already found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of issues similar to those in the present case related to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions.<\/p>\n 12. 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 company\u2019s favour.<\/p>\n 13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 14. The applicant company also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 about the non-enforcement of the same final domestic judgment, which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in the above cited case of Ventorino.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Ventorino, De Trana, and Nicola Silvestri, all judgments cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 16. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment which remains enforceable.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the application out of the list on the basis of the unilateral declaration;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic decision in the applicant company\u2019s favour;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1 as regards the other complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 5. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decision referred to in the appended table;<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Krzysztof Wojtyczek ______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF RUMMO MOLINO & PASTIFICIO S.P.A. v. ITALY<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 7133\/09)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 January 2024<\/p>\n
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
\nL\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)<\/p>\n