[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> GOLINO v. ITALY - 12172/86 [1992] ECHR 22 (27 February 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/22.html Cite as: [1992] ECHR 22

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Golino 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 F. Matscher,

Mr B. Walsh,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr A.N. Loizou,

Mr J.M. Morenilla,

Mr F. Bigi,

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

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 October 1991 and

24 January 1992,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 11/1991/263/334. 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 on 8 March 1991 by the

European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), 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. 12172/86) against the Italian Republic lodged with

the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national,

Mr Luigi Golino, on 16 April 1986.

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 23 April 1991 the President of the Court decided that,

pursuant to Rule 21 para. 6 and in the interests of the proper

administration of justice, this case and the cases of Diana, Ridi,

Casciaroli, Manieri, Mastrantonio, Idrocalce S.r.l., Owners'

Services Ltd, Cardarelli, Taiuti, Maciariello, Manifattura FL,

Steffano, Ruotolo, Vorrasi, Cappello, G. v. Italy, Caffè

Roversi S.p.a., Andreucci, Gana, Barbagallo, Cifola, Pandolfelli and

Palumbo, Arena, Pierazzini, Tusa, Cooperativa Parco Cuma,

Serrentino, Cormio, Lorenzi, Bernardini and Gritti and Tumminelli*

should be heard by the same Chamber.

_______________

* Cases nos. 3/1991/255/326 to 10/1991/262/333; 12/1991/264/335;

13/1991/265/336; 15/1991/267/338; 16/1991/268/339; 18/1991/270/341;

20/1991/272/343; 22/1991/274/345; 24/1991/276/347; 25/1991/277/348;

33/1991/285/356; 36/1991/288/359; 38/1991/290/361; 40/1991/292/363

to 44/1991/296/367; 50/1991/302/373; 51/1991/303/374;

58/1991/310/381; 59/1991/311/382; 61/1991/313/384

_______________

4. The Chamber to be constituted for this purpose 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)). On the same day, in

the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names

of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher,

Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr I. Foighel, Mr J.M. Morenilla and Mr F. Bigi (Article 43 in fine

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

Subsequently, Mr B. Walsh, Mr A.N. Loizou and Mr N. Valticos,

substitute judges, replaced respectively Mr Pinheiro Farinha and

Sir Vincent Evans, who had both resigned and whose successors had

taken up their duties before the deliberations held on 30 October,

and Mr Foighel, who was unable to take part in the further

consideration of the case (Rules 2 para. 3, 22 para. 1 and

24 para. 1).

5. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber

(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the

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

of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37

para. 1 and 38). In accordance with the order made in consequence,

the Registrar received the Government's memorial on 16 July 1991.

By a letter received on 22 August, the Secretary to the Commission

informed the Registrar that the Delegate did not consider it

necessary to reply thereto.

6. On 28 June 1991 the Chamber had decided to dispense with a

hearing, having found that the conditions for such derogation from

the usual procedure were satisfied (Rules 26 and 38).

7. On 28 August the Commission produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the

President's instructions.

8. On 5 and 26 November 1991, respectively, the Commission and

the Government lodged their observations on the claims for just

satisfaction which the applicant had communicated to the Registrar

on 31 July (Article 50 of the Convention; Rules 50 and 1(k), taken

together) (art. 50).

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mr Luigi Golino is an Italian national and resides at

Marcianise (Caserta). The facts established by the Commission

pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as

follows (paragraphs 16-23 of its report):

"16. On 24 August 1980 the applicant was involved in a traffic

accident (a collision between the motorcycle which he was riding and

one ridden by a Mrs F.) which caused him serious injury.

17. Criminal proceedings against Mrs F., in the course of which

a medical opinion was also submitted, ended in the case being

discharged under an amnesty law.

18. By summons served on 4 September 1982, the applicant claimed

damages in respect of the accident against Mrs F. and Mr M. before

the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court.

19. The investigation of the case, commenced at the hearing of

14 December 1982, continued at the hearings of 5 April 1983,

8 July 1983 (adjourned at the defendants' request), 8 November 1983,

23 December 1983, 10 April 1984, 25 September 1984 and

25 January 1985.

20. On 28 May 1985 the investigating judge invited the parties

to make their final submissions at the hearing of 19 November 1985.

However, on that date the investigating judge had other commitments

and the hearing was thus adjourned to 1 April 1986. On that date,

allowing a request by the defendants, the investigating judge called

for the taking of an expert opinion in order to establish the

seriousness of the injuries suffered by the applicant and summoned

the expert to the hearing of 26 September 1986.

21. Because the investigating judge was unable to attend, this

was postponed by court order to 6 February 1987, when the expert was

sworn in. He examined the applicant on 26 February 1987 and lodged

the opinion on 12 May 1987. At the end of the hearing on

5 June 1987, the case was ready to be tried.

22. On 27 November 1987 the parties made their final submissions

and the investigating judge referred the case to the competent court

chamber. The hearing before it took place on 21 February 1989, when

judgment was reserved.

23. On 14 March 1989 the District Court ordered the defendants

to pay damages. The text of the decision was lodged with the

registry on 27 May 1989."

10. According to the information supplied by the Government to

the European Court, no appeal was filed.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. Mr Golino lodged his application with the Commission on

16 April 1986. He complained of the length of the civil proceedings

brought by him and relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12172/86) admissible. In its report of 15 January 1991

(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 229-H

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

Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

_______________

AS TO THE LAW

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

13. The applicant claimed that his civil action 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, whereas the Commission accepted

it.

14. The period to be taken into consideration began on

4 September 1982 when the proceedings were instituted against Mrs F.

and Mr M. in the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court. It ended,

at the latest, on 27 May 1990 when the District Court's judgment

became final (see the Pugliese (II) v. Italy judgment of

24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-A, p. 8, para. 16).

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

assessed with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's

case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in

this instance call for an overall assessment.

16. The Government invoked the complexity of the facts, the

conduct of the applicant - who in particular had not requested that

his case be dealt with more rapidly - and the excessive workload of

the District Court.

17. The Court notes in the first place that the investigation

took just under six years (14 December 1982 - 27 November 1987). It

is true that the investigating judge had to question four witnesses

and have recourse to an expert opinion; in addition, the applicant

caused an adjournment (not referred to in the Commission's report)

and the defendants obtained two adjournments. The Court observes

nevertheless, like the Commission, that there were two periods of

stagnation: from 28 May 1985 to 1 April 1986 and from that date to

6 February 1987. Moreover, the judge waited until the hearing of

25 September 1984 to hear witnesses which Mr Golino had cited at the

very beginning and until 1 April 1986 to order an expert opinion, a

measure requested by the defendants but which he could have ordered

earlier of his own motion.

The trial hearing did not take place until 21 February 1989, one

year and three months after the end of the investigation, which

delay made the situation worse. The Government pleaded the backlog

of cases pending in the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court, but

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) imposes on the Contracting States the

duty to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts

can meet each of its requirements (see, inter alia, the Vocaturo

v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32,

para. 17).

18. Accordingly and notwithstanding the fact that the State

cannot be held responsible for the year which elapsed until the

decision, the text of which was lodged with the registry on

27 May 1989, became final, the Court cannot regard as "reasonable"

the lapse of time in the present case.

There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1).

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)

19. 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."

A. Damage

20. The applicant claimed in the first place compensation for

pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, without giving any figures. He

did not seek the reimbursement of costs and expenses.

The Commission took the view that, in addition to reparation for

non-pecuniary damage, Mr Golino was entitled to compensation for any

pecuniary damage sustained by him if he succeeded in establishing

its existence and that of a causal connection with the violation

found.

21. The evidence does not show that these conditions have been

satisfied. On the other hand, the applicant undoubtedly suffered

non-pecuniary damage for which the Court, making an assessment on an

equitable basis, awards him 2,000,000 Italian lire.

B.Interest

22. The Commission invited the Court to fix for the Government

- who did not give their opinion - a compulsory time-limit for

executing the present judgment and to make provision for the payment

of interest in the event of their failure to comply therewith.

23. The first of these proposals is in conformity with a

practice followed by the Court since October 1991.

As to the second, the Court does not consider it appropriate to

require any payment of interest in this instance, particularly as no

such request was made by the applicant.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

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

(art. 6-1);

2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to Mr Golino,

within three months, 2,000,000 (two million) Italian lire for

non-pecuniary damage;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.

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

the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 February 1992.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar