[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> STEFFANO v. ITALY - 12409/86 [1992] ECHR 35 (27 February 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/35.html Cite as: [1992] ECHR 35

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Steffano 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 16/1991/268/339. 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. 12409/86) against the Italian Republic lodged with the

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

Mrs Silvia Steffano, on 16 June 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 she

wished to take part in the proceedings; the President of the Court

gave her leave to present her own case (Rule 30 para. 1, second

sentence).

3. On 23 April 1991 the President 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, 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 13/1991/265/336; 15/1991/267/338;

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"), the Delegate of the

Commission and the applicant 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 May (Article 50 of the Convention) (art. 50) and

on which the Government had already commented in their memorial.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mrs Silvia Steffano is an Italian national and resides in

Rome where she practises as a lawyer. The facts established by the

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

are as follows (paragraphs 16-21 of its report):

"16. From 30 June to 28 July 1982 the applicant, a

trainee lawyer, served as an 'expert' on an examinations

board for the upper secondary examinations and received the

remuneration prescribed by law for all members of such

boards.

17. Considering herself further entitled as a board

member not in the employ of the administration to a payment

calculated on the basis of a teacher's monthly salary, she

applied accordingly to the Provincial Director of Education

(Provveditore agli studi). Her application was rejected on

17 September 1982.

18. On 13 November 1982 she applied to the Lombardy

Regional Administrative Court (RAC) to establish her claim

to the requested additional remuneration. On the same day

she asked for the hearing date to be fixed.

19. Three further requests were submitted by the

applicant on 5 May 1983, 23 October 1984 and 30 April 1986.

20. On 1 December 1987 the RAC presiding judge set the

hearing down for 29 January 1988, on which date the RAC

dismissed the applicant's claim. The text of the decision

was lodged with the court registry on 17 October 1988.

21. On 13 April 1989 the applicant appealed to the

Consiglio di Stato (supreme administrative court) ... "

10. On 16 July 1991 the Government notified the European Court

that the Consiglio di Stato had deliberated on 5 July 1991, but that

the text of its decision had not yet been filed with the registry.

The Court does not have any more recent information*.

_______________

* Note by the Registrar: the day after the delivery of the present

judgment, the Registrar received a communication from the Italian

Government from which it appears that the Consiglio di Stato dismissed

the applicant's appeal by a decision of 5 July 1991, filed with the

registry on 30 January 1992.

_______________

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. Mrs Steffano lodged her application with the Commission on

16 June 1986. She complained of the length of the civil proceedings

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

Convention.

12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12409/86) admissible. In its report of 5 December 1990

(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-C 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 her 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 contested this view, whereas the Commission

accepted it.

14. The period to be taken into consideration began on

13 November 1982 when the proceedings were instituted in the

Lombardy Regional Administrative Court. It will end when the text

of the decision of the Consiglio di Stato is filed with the

registry, or ended when that occurred, if it already has done.

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 excessive workload of the

Lombardy Regional Administrative 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).

In the administrative court Mrs Steffano had to wait more

than five years, despite her repeated requests, for the date of the

hearing to be fixed (13 November 1982 - 1 December 1987). In

addition no investigative measure was taken during this period and

more than eight and a half months elapsed before the judgment was

filed (29 January - 17 October 1988).

It is true that the applicant then took almost six months to

lodge an appeal (17 October 1988 - 13 April 1989), for which period

the State is not responsible. As regards the Consiglio di Stato,

neither the applicant nor the other participants in the Strasbourg

proceedings have provided the Court with sufficient details for it

to be able to determine whether that body displayed due diligence.

17. Nevertheless, the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" in

this instance a total duration which at 16 July 1991 was already

more than eight and a half years, six of which were for the

first-instance proceedings alone.

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."

19. The applicant claimed for damage a sum of 4,000,000 Italian

lire, or any other amount which the Court deemed appropriate.

According to the Government, she has not shown that she

sustained pecuniary damage. As to any non-pecuniary damage, a

finding of a violation would provide sufficient just satisfaction.

The Commission took the view that, in addition to reparation

for non-pecuniary damage, Mrs Steffano was entitled to compensation

for any pecuniary damage sustained by her if she succeeded in

establishing its existence and that of a causal connection with the

violation found.

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

satisfied. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers

that the conclusion appearing in paragraph 17 of this judgment

constitutes, in this instance, adequate satisfaction for the

purposes of Article 50 (art. 50).

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 present judgment constitutes in itself

sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50

(art. 50) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage alleged;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim.

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