[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> PUGLIESE v. ITALY (No. 2) - 11671/85 [1991] ECHR 32 (24 May 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1991/32.html Cite as: [1991] ECHR 32

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the Pugliese (II) case*,

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 J. Cremona,

Mr Thór Vilhjälmsson,

Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Sir Vincent Evans,

Mr C. Russo

Mr S.K. Martens

Mr J.M. Morenilla,

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

Deputy Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 January and 24 April

1991,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 25/1990/216/278. 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.

*** The amendments to the rules of Court which came into

force on 1 April 1989 are applicable to this case.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European

Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 21 May 1990,

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. 11671/85) against the

Italian Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25

(art. 25) by a national of that State, Mr Vincenzo Pugliese,

on 29 June 1985.

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 did not wish to take part in the proceedings.

3. On 24 May 1990 the President of the Court decided that, in

the interests of the proper administration of justice, this

case - together with the Caleffi and Vocaturo cases* - should

be considered by the Chamber constituted on 26 March 1990 to

hear the Brigandì, Zanghì and Santilli cases** (Rule 21

para. 6). It 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, whose names had been drawn by

lot, were Mr J. Cremona, Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,

Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert, Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr R. Bernhardt,

Mr S.K. Martens and Mr J.M. Morenilla (Article 43 in fine of

the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently,

Sir Vincent Evans, substitute judge, replaced Mr N. Valticos,

who was unable to take part in the further consideration of

the case and had initially replaced, for the same reason, Mr

Bernhardt (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* 27/1990/218/280 and 28/1990/219/281

** 2/1990/193/253, 3/1990/194/254 and 5/1990/196/256

_______________

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

through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Italian

Government ("the Government") and the Delegate of the

Commission on the need for a written procedure (Rule 37

para. 1). In accordance with the order made in consequence,

the Registrar received the Government's memorial on 15

November 1990. In a letter received on 18 January 1991 the

Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the

Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.

5. In the meantime, on 16 August 1990, the applicant had sent

the Registrar his claims for just satisfaction under

Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention (Rules 50 and 1 (k)

taken together).

6. Having consulted, through the Registrar, those who would be

appearing before the Court, the President directed on

21 November 1990 that the oral proceedings should open on

22 January 1991 (Rule 38).

7. On 27 November 1990, the Commission produced the file on

the proceedings before it, as the Registrar had requested on

the President's instructions.

8. The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights

Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day. The Court had

held a preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr G. Raimondi, magistrato, on secondment to

the Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, Co-Agent,

Mr G. Manzo, magistrato, on secondment

to the Ministry of Justice, Counsel;

(b) for the Commission

Mr G. Sperduti, Delegate.

The Court heard addresses by them, as well as their replies

to its questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mr Vincenzo Pugliese, an Italian citizen, lives in Rome,

where he works as a journalist.

On 6 February 1984 he obtained from the President of the

Rome District Court an order for payment against Società

generale per lavori agricoli ed industriali (Sogelai), and

served it on Sogelai on 8 March 1984. It was for 27,712,545

Italian lire, as reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him

as a director of that company.

10. On 26 March the company applied for the order to be set

aside and summoned Mr Pugliese to appear before the Rome

District Court on 25 June 1984.

A first investigative hearing took place before the judge

responsible for preparing the case for trial (giudice

istruttore) on 26 June 1984. A Mrs F. intervened in the case

and put forward her own claim to the sum demanded by the

applicant, maintaining that she had purchased his shares in

Sogelai. The judge arranged a second hearing for 19 October

1984. At the third hearing on 22 May 1985 the parties lodged

their submissions; the judge sent the case for trial before

the District Court and fixed the hearing for 21 April 1987.

The judgment was adopted on 22 May 1987 and filed with the

registry on 10 July 1987. The District Court declared the

disputed order void and upheld Mrs F.'s claim to the sum in

question. Accordingly, it ordered Sogelai to pay it to Mrs

F.; Mr Pugliese was to pay costs.

11. The judgment became final one year after it was

pronounced, i.e. on 10 July 1988.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

12. In his application of 29 June 1985 to the Commission

(no. 11671/85), Mr Pugliese complained of the length of the

civil proceedings brought against him by Sogelai. He relied

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

13. The Commission declared the application admissible on

10 March 1989. In its report of 6 March 1990 (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 206-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court),

but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the

registry.

_______________

FINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY THE GOVERNMENT

14. At the hearing on 22 January 1991 the Government

confirmed the final submissions in their memorial, and asked

the Court to hold that "there [had] been no breach of the

Convention".

AS TO THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)

15. Mr Pugliese complained that the civil action brought

against him by Sogelai 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; the Commission on the

other hand agreed with it.

16. The period to be taken into consideration began on

6 February 1984, the date of the order to pay, and ended on

10 July 1988 when the Rome District Court's judgment became

final.

17. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be

assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the

case and of the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law

(see, inter alia, the H. v. France judgment of

24 October 1989, Series A no. 162, p. 21, para. 50).

18. The Government maintained that the length of the

proceedings in question was due to the case's complexity

(resulting from Mrs F.'s intervention) and to the excessive

workload of the relevant Chamber at the Rome District Court.

19. The Court notes that Mrs F.'s intervention did not give

rise to any special complexity. As to the Government's second

argument, the Court points out that under Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) everyone has the right to a final decision within a

reasonable time in the determination of his civil rights and

obligations. It is for the Contracting States to organise

their legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet

this requirement (see, most recently, the Santilli judgment of

19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-D, p. 61, para. 20).

In the present case the time taken for the investigative

stage (26 June 1984 to 22 May 1985) does not appear excessive,

but he same cannot be said of the period of almost two years

(22 May 1985 to 21 April 1987) which then elapsed until the

hearing before the trial court.

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."

As compensation for damage Mr Pugliese claimed a sum

corresponding to the amount fixed in the order to pay

(27,712,545 Italian lire) plus interest, together with

2,761,930 lire for the costs and expenses relating to the

proceedings in the national court. He also sought to be

reimbursed the costs said to have been incurred by him before

the Court.

The Government for their part denied that there had been

pecuniary damage, and the commission left it to the Court to

decide.

21. The Court sees no causal link between the violation found

and either the alleged damage or any costs relating to the

domestic proceedings. As regards costs referable to the

Court's proceedings, in which Mr Pugliese took no part, he has

not specified any figure. He is therefore not entitled to the

reimbursement sought.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6

para. 1 (art. 6-1);

2. Dismisses the claim for just satisfaction.

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

hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on

24 May 1991.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar