[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> RUOTOLO v. ITALY - 12460/86 [1992] ECHR 32 (27 February 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/32.html Cite as: [1992] ECHR 32

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Ruotolo 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 18/1991/270/341. 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. 12460/86) against the Italian Republic lodged with the

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

Mr Luigi Ruotolo, on 15 September 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, Golino, Taiuti, Maciariello,

Manifattura FL, Steffano, 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 13/1991/265/336; 15/1991/267/338;

16/1991/268/339; 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 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 November the Commission lodged its observations on the

claims for just satisfaction which the applicant had communicated to

the Registrar on 3 April and 11 June (Article 50 of the Convention;

Rules 50 and 1(k), taken together) (art. 50) and on which the

Government had already commented in their memorial.

AS TO THE FACTS

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

Montesilvano (Pescara). The facts established by the Commission

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

follows (paragraphs 16-25 of its report):

"16. In April 1979 the applicant was dismissed by the X

company.

17. On 18 October 1979 he applied to the Rome

magistrate's court (pretore) for reinstatement and damages.

18. The investigation of the case proceeded at the

following hearings: 8 January 1980 (adjourned at the request

of the parties), 22 January 1980, 29 April 1980 (adjourned

owing to the absence of the witnesses summoned to appear),

13 May 1980, 9 July 1980 (adjourned for the same reasons),

14 October 1980, 24 November 1980 (adjourned at the

defendant's request), 9 December 1980 (adjourned owing to

the absence of the witnesses summoned to appear),

23 February 1981 and 28 April 1981.

19. At the close of the last-mentioned hearing, the

magistrate's court gave a decision dismissing the

applicant's claim. The text was lodged with the registry on

29 April 1981.

20. On 19 November 1981 the applicant appealed against

the above decision. The hearing before the Rome District

Court on 2 July 1982 ended in the dismissal of the

applicant's appeal. The text of the decision (thirteen

typed pages) was lodged with the registry on

24 February 1983.

21. On 23 February 1984 the applicant appealed to the

Court of Cassation, which on 24 October 1985, after hearing

the case, allowed the application, set aside the lower

court's decision and referred the case to the Frosinone

District Court. The decision by the Court of Cassation

(twelve typed pages) was lodged with the registry on

27 March 1986.

22. On 17 January 1987 the applicant resumed his action

before the Frosinone District Court. The investigation,

commenced at the hearing on 1 April 1987, continued at the

hearings of 22 October 1987 and 21 January 1988 (adjourned

at the parties' request), 12 October 1988 (adjourned because

the investigating judge was not present), 17 November 1988

(adjourned at the parties' request) and 19 January 1989.

23. At the close of the final hearing the court

delivered judgment, reversing the decision by the Rome

magistrate's court and allowing the applicant's petition for

reinstatement. It also awarded him the sum of 10,443,900

lire, adjusted and with interest.

24. The text of the decision (fourteen typed pages) was

lodged with the registry on 18 July 1989.

25. On 21 December 1989 the X company appealed against

this decision to the Court of Cassation. On 30 January 1990

the applicant filed a reply to the appeal and also an appeal

objecting to the amount of the damages awarded to him."

10. According to the information since supplied by the

Government, the Court of Cassation gave judgment on 31 May 1991, but

on 24 January 1992 the text of its judgment had still not been filed

with the registry.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. Mr Ruotolo lodged his application with the Commission on

15 September 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. 12460/86) 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 230-D

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

18 October 1979 when the proceedings were instituted in the Rome

magistrate's court. It ended, at the earliest, on 31 May 1991, the

date of the second judgment of the Court of Cassation.

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 and the

excessive workload of the relevant courts. In addition, the

applicant had not requested that his case be dealt with more

rapidly.

17. The Court stresses that special diligence is necessary in

employment disputes (see the Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of

24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17). Italy moreover

acknowledged this by amending, in 1973, the special procedure laid

down in this field and by introducing, in 1990, emergency measures

intended to speed up the conduct of such proceedings (see, as the

most recent authority, the Lestini v. Italy judgment of

26 February 1992, Series A no. 228-E, p. 54, para. 18).

The case was one of some complexity and the parties caused

five adjournments of hearings. It should also be noted that the

applicant did not resume his action until more than nine months

after the first judgment of the Court of Cassation (27 March 1986

- 17 January 1987). In addition and above all, the examination of

the case gave rise to two consecutive sets of proceedings, the first

of which lasted from 18 October 1979 to 27 March 1986, and the

second, after the Court of Cassation had remitted the case to a

different court, until at least 31 May 1991.

The Government pleaded the backlog of cases in the relevant

courts, 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, cited above, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32,

para. 17).

Viewed separately, several of the delays observed may appear

normal; however, having regard to the sum of such periods and

several delays for which the competent courts were responsible - in

particular as regards the filing of the decision of 2 July 1982

(more than seven and a half months) and of the judgment of

24 October 1985 (more than five months) -, the Court considers an

overall lapse of time of more than twelve years excessive.

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

(art. 6-1).

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)

18. 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

19. Mr Ruotolo claimed in the first place 335,000,000 Italian

lire or, in the alternative, 19,000,000 lire for pecuniary damage;

he left the matter of non-pecuniary damage to be assessed by the

Court.

The Government denied that there had been any pecuniary

damage, because the applicant's claims were unfounded. In

particular, his primary claim was based, inter alia, on a

consideration - the inadequate statement of reasons given in the

Rome District Court's judgment (see paragraph 9 above, no. 23) -

which could not be taken into account under Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention.

As regards the non-pecuniary damage, a finding of a

violation would provide in itself sufficient just satisfaction in

the Government's view.

20. There is no evidence that the applicant sustained pecuniary

damage resulting from the failure to comply with the requirement of

reasonable time. On the other hand, he must have suffered a degree

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

on an equitable basis, awards 5,000,000 lire.

B. Costs and expenses

21. The applicant also claimed 7,502,000 lire in respect of

costs incurred in the national courts.

The Court cannot perceive a causal connection between the

violation found and the costs incurred in the domestic legal system.

There are therefore no grounds for awarding Mr Ruotolo the

reimbursement claimed.

C. 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

1. Holds by eight votes to one that there has been a violation

of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);

2. Holds unanimously that the respondent State is to pay to

Mr Ruotolo, within three months, 5,000,000 (five million)

Italian lire for non-pecuniary damage;

3. Dismisses unanimously 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

In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the

Convention and Rule 53 para. 2 of the Rules of Court, the dissenting

opinion of Mr Bigi is annexed to the present judgment.

Initialled: R. R.

Initialled: M.-A. E.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BIGI

(Translation)

I am unable to agree with the majority in this case because

I do not consider that the sum of the delays for which the State can

be held responsible amounts to an unreasonable time in this

instance.