[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> VOCATURO v. ITALY - 11891/85 [1991] ECHR 34 (24 May 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1991/34.html Cite as: [1991] ECHR 34

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the Vocaturo 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 Vilhjálmsson,

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 28/1990/219/281. 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. 11891/85) against the Italian Republic lodged with

the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a national of that

State, Mr Nicola Vocaturo, on 20 September 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's wife informed

the registry on 25 July 1990 that her husband had died; she stated

that she wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to take part

in them and be represented by the lawyer she had designated (Rule

30). For reasons of convenience Mr Vocaturo will continue to be

referred to in this judgment as the applicant, although it is now

his widow who is to be regarded as having this status (see, among

other authorities, the Colozza judgment of 12 February 1985, Series

A no. 89, p. 7, para. 6).

Subsequently, the President gave Mrs Vocaturo and her lawyer

leave to use the Italian language (Rule 27 para. 3).

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 Pugliese (II) and Caleffi 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

* 25/1990/216/278 and 27/1990/218/280

** 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"), the Delegate of the Commission and

the lawyer for the applicant on the need for a written procedure

(Rule 37 para. 1). In accordance with the order made in

consequence, the Registrar received the applicant's memorial on 28

September 1990 and the Government's memorial on 15 November. 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. Having consulted, through the Registrar, those who would be

appearing before the Court, the President had directed on

21 November 1990 that the oral proceedings should open

on 22 January 1991 (Rule 38).

6. On 27 November 1990 the Commission produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as the Registrar had requested on the

President's instructions.

7. On 15, 17 and 21 January 1991 five trade union associations

(the provincial organisations of the Confederazione Generale

Italiana del Lavoro, Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori

and Unione Italiana Lavoratori, and also the Associazione sindacale

aziende petrolifere and Consorzio industriale zona Ariccia,

castelli Romani e aree limitrofe) sought leave under Rule 37 para.

2 to submit written comments. On 22 January the President decided

not to grant them leave.

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;

(c) for the applicant

Mr M. de Stefano, avvocato, Counsel,

Mr R. Vaccarella, avvocato, Adviser.

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

its questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mr Nicola Vocaturo, an Italian citizen, lived in Rome until

his death. The facts established by the Commission pursuant to

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

(paragraphs 15-20 of its report - see paragraph 11 below):

"15. On 26 June 1973, Mr B. brought an action before the Rome

District Court against the "Istituto Nazionale delle

Assicurazioni" (I.N.A.) and against the applicant, the

I.N.A.'s property manager. He sought recognition of his

status as an employee and asked that the I.N.A. and the

applicant, as employers, be ordered to pay the differences in

remuneration to which he claimed to be entitled in respect of

work carried out between 1969 and 1972 at the I.N.A.'s

property management office.

16. Two hearings took place before the investigating judge on

2 October and 4 December 1973. A third hearing, set for

30 April 1974, did not take place since the examination of the

case had been suspended following the entry into force of Act

no. 533/1973.

17. That Act reformed the procedure in labour relations cases

and amended the rules of jurisdiction in this area,

jurisdiction being given to the magistrate's court (pretore)

at first instance and to the District Court on appeal. For

proceedings pending, section 20 of the Act provided that these

were not to be subject to the changes in jurisdiction, and

authorised the investigating judge to rule himself, sitting as

a single judge, in cases pending at first instance before the

District Court which had not yet reached decision stage.

18. The examination of the applicant's case was resumed only

on 6 February 1978, and on 25 September 1978 he was ordered to

pay 3,524,395 Italian lire, adjusted to allow for currency

devaluation and to include interest at the statutory rate.

19. On 17 October 1979 the applicant appealed to the Rome

Court of Appeal. On 28 March 1980 the Court dismissed his

appeal and ordered him and the I.N.A. jointly and severally to

pay 7,133,925 lire, adjusted to allow for currency devaluation

and to include interest at the statutory rate.

20. On 20 March 1981 the applicant appealed to the Court of

Cassation. The hearing before the Court of Cassation took

place on 29 April 1985. Following that hearing the Court

dismissed the appeal. The text of the judgment was deposited

with the registry on 27 November 1985."

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

10. In his application of 20 September 1985 to the Commission

(no. 11891/85), Mr Vocaturo complained of the length of the civil

proceedings brought against him by Mr B. He relied on Article 6

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

11. 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-C

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

12. 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)

13. Mr Vocaturo complained that the civil action brought against

him by Mr B. 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.

14. The period to be taken into consideration began not on

26 June 1973 when the action against the applicant and I.N.A. was

commenced in the Rome District Court, but on 1 August 1973 when the

Italian declaration recognising the right of individual petition

took effect. In order to determine whether the length of time

which elapsed after that date was reasonable, regard must be had,

however, to the state of the case at that time (see, in particular,

the Brigandì judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-B,

p. 31, para. 28).

The relevant period ended when the Court of Cassation's

judgment was deposited on 27 November 1985.

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

assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case

and 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).

16. As to the proceedings in the Rome District Court, the

Government maintained that their progress had been retarded by the

coming into force in 1973 of new legislation on labour disputes

which introduced jurisdictional changes. This was an exceptional

factor to be taken into account. The period of over four years

which it took the Court of Cassation to hold a hearing and to come

to a decision was attributable to that Court's excessive workload

and the duty in general to examine cases in the order in which they

were received. In this respect the Government attached great

weight to the fact that Mr Vocaturo did not request priority

treatment for the case.

The applicant conceded for his part that responsibility for

the periods between 20 October 1978 and 17 October 1979 and between

9 May 1980 and 20 March 1981 could not be attributed to the Italian

authorities; he needed them for preparing the subsequent stages of

the proceedings and negotiating with the opposing party. He also

accepted that the Court of Appeal had reached a decision within a

reasonable time.

17. As regards the excessive workload, the Court points out that

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

Employment disputes by their nature call generally for

expeditious decision (see in particular, mutatis mutandis, the

Obermeier judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 23,

para. 72). The Italian authorities moreover acknowledged this by

amending the special procedure used in such cases in 1973; the

changes introduced included a shortening of the time-limits

normally applicable in civil proceedings. In the present case none

of them was complied with. This happened in particular at first

instance and in the Court of Cassation; at both of those levels

there was a period of stagnation of over four years.

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. The applicant claimed 500,000 Italian lire in respect of

pecuniary damage and 10,000,000 lire for non-pecuniary damage.

According to the Government, Mr Vocaturo did not suffer any

damage; if a finding were made that there had been a violation,

such a finding would in itself constitute adequate just

satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage.

The Commission left the matter to be determined by the Court.

The Court finds that the compensation sought in respect of

pecuniary damage is justified. It also considers that the

applicant undoubtedly suffered non-pecuniary loss. Making an

assessment on an equitable basis, it awards him the sum claimed

under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

20. Mr Vocaturo also claimed 3,000,000 lire for costs and expenses

incurred before the Convention organs.

Having regard to the evidence in its possession and its

relevant case-law, the Court awards him the amount claimed.

C. Publication of the judgment

21. Finally, the applicant requested that the present judgment be

published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica italiana and

in the principal national daily newspapers. The Commission's

Delegate made no observations on this point.

The Court, agreeing with the Government, finds that it has no

jurisdiction under the Convention to order the Italian State to

take such measures (see, mutatis mutandis, the Zanghì judgment of

19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 48, para. 26).

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 Mrs Vocaturo

10,500,000 (ten million five hundred thousand) Italian lire in

respect of damage and 3,000,000 (three million) lire for costs

and expenses;

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 24 May 1991.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar