FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ALUNNI AND OTHERS v. ITALY
(Application no. 16505/22 and 9 others – see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
11 January 2024
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Alunni 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 Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Italian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicants are lawyers who declared that they had advanced legal fees in respect of their clients (avvocati antistatari) and who were awarded legal fees through assignment orders (ordinanze di assegnazione) aimed at implementing decisions or judgments issued under Law no. 89 of 2001 (“the Pinto Act”). They complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of such assignment orders. 2. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. RELEVANT legal framework
3. 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). The Pinto Act was subsequently amended in 2012 (Law-Decree no. 83 of 2012, converted into Law no. 134 of 7 August 2012) and in 2015 (section 1, paragraph 777 of Law no. 208 of 28 December 2015). 4. The relevant provisions of the Pinto Act, following the above amendments, are as follows:
Section 5 sexies (terms of payment)
“1. In order to receive the payment of the sums awarded pursuant to the present Act, the creditor shall issue a declaration [...] to the debtor authority, certifying that no sums have been paid in execution of the relevant domestic decision, indicating whether enforcement proceedings have been instituted for the judgment debt, the sum that the authorities are still required to pay and the preferred method of payment pursuant to paragraph 9 of the present section. The creditor shall also submit the necessary documents required under the decrees indicated in paragraph 3.
... 3. A model declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 and the documents to be submitted to the debtor authority shall be determined by decrees of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, to be issued before 30 October 2016. The authorities shall publish the forms and documents referred to in the latter sentence on their institutional websites. ... 4. In the event of an absent, incomplete or irregular submission of the declaration or documentation referred to in the preceding paragraphs, the payment order may not be issued. 5. The authority shall make the payment within six months from the date on which the obligations provided for in the preceding paragraphs are fully discharged. The time-limit referred to in the preceding sentence shall not begin to run in the event of absent, incomplete or irregular submission of the declaration or documentation referred to in the preceding paragraphs.
... 9. The payment of the sums owed under the present Act is made crediting the sums to the creditors’ current or payment accounts. Payments in cash and through bills of exchange are only possible for sums not exceeding 1,000 euros.”
5. By Decree no. 120738 of 28 October 2016, the Ministry of Economy and Finance adopted the model declaration required under paragraph 3 of section 5 sexies of the Pinto Act. 6. As to the request of payment of legal fees awarded in the “Pinto” proceedings, the model declaration requires the creditor to indicate: (i) whether enforcement proceedings relating to “Pinto” decisions have been instituted; (ii) the reference of any assignment order issued in the context of those enforcement proceedings; (iii) whether the sums awarded by the assignment order have been paid by the debtor authority; and (iv) any outstanding amount which still needs to be paid.

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