FIRST SECTION
CASE OF PASQUARIELLO v. ITALY
(Application no. 57962/22)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 May 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pasquariello v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 April 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Italy lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 December 2022. 2. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
5. The domestic law concerning the Pinto Act is set out in the Cocchiarella v. Italy judgment ([GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 23-31, ECHR 2006‑V) and in the Di Giuseppe v. Italy decision ([Committee], no. 7997/21, 5 December 2023). THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in his favour. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As concerns to the decision issued by the Naples Court of Appeal on 9 June 2016 (R.G. no. 624/2016)
7. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to submit a declaration containing the necessary information for the authorities to proceed to the payment of the judgment debt. They contended that such declaration must be submitted in order to issue the payment of sums awarded in “Pinto” decisions, as required under Article 5 sexies of the Pinto Act (see paragraph 4 above). 8. The applicant did not comment. 9. The Court has already examined the issue at stake in the decision Di Giuseppe (cited above, § 9) where it established that the obligation to send the declaration and supporting documents under Article 5 sexies of the Pinto Act constitutes a reasonable procedural step which is required of the creditor in order to obtain sums awarded by “Pinto” decisions. The failure of the creditor to comply with this obligation constitutes an obstacle to the enforcement of the decisions in his favour, for which the authorities cannot be held responsible. 10. In this connection, the Court observes that in relation to the decision issued by the Naples Court of Appeal on 9 June 2016 (R.G. no. 624/2016) the applicant did not deny that he failed to submit the declaration under Article 5 sexies of the Pinto Act. 11. The Court considers that for the reasons stated above, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the delayed enforcement of the decision issued by the Naples Court of Appeal on 9 June 2016 (R.G. no. 624/2016). 12. In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As concerns the remaining domestic decisions (see the appended table below)
13. The Court notes that neither the Government nor the applicant submitted any observations in respect of the remaining decisions listed in the appended table. 14. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 15. In the leading cases of Ventorino v. Italy, no. 357/07, 17 May 2011, De Trana v. Italy, no. 64215/01, 16 October 2007, Nicola Silvestri v. Italy, no. 16861/02, 9 June 2009, Antonetto v. Italy, no. 15918/89, 20 July 2000 and De Luca v. Italy, no. 43870/04, 24 September 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 16. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicant’s favour. 17. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
18. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). 19. For the reasons stated above, in relation to the decision issued by the Naples Court of Appeal on 9 June 2016 (R.G. no. 624/2016), this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 20. As concerns the remaining domestic decisions, these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ventorino (cited above).

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation