GRAND CHAMBER
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF GIUSEPPINA AND ORESTINA PROCACCINI v. ITALY
 
(Application no. 65075/01)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
29 March 2006
 
 
This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Giuseppina and Orestina Procaccini v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:
 Mr L. Wildhaber, President,
 Mr C.L. Rozakis,
 Mr J.-P. Costa,
 Sir Nicolas Bratza,
 Mr B.M. Zupančič,
 Mr L. Caflisch,
 Mr C. Bîrsan,
 Mr K. Jungwiert,
 Mr M. Pellonpää,
 Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
 Mr R. Maruste,
 Mr S. Pavlovschi,
 Mr L. Garlicki,
 Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
 Mr E. Myjer,
 Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
 Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, ad hoc judge,
and Mr T.L. Early, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2005 and 18 January 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last‑mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 65075/01) against the Italian Republic lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Italian nationals, Ms Giuseppina Procaccini and Ms Orestina Procaccini (“the applicants”), on 19 November 1997. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr S. de Nigris de Maria, of the Benevento Bar, in the proceedings before the Chamber and subsequently by Mr S. de Nigris de Maria, Mr T. Verrilli, Mr C. Marcellino, Mr A. Nardone and Mr V. Collarile, of the Benevento Bar. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented successively by their Agents, Mr U. Leanza and Mr I.M. Braguglia, and their co-Agents, Mr V. Esposito and Mr F. Crisafulli, and their deputy co-Agent, Mr N. Lettieri. 3. The applicants alleged that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of civil proceedings to which they had been parties. Subsequently, the applicants indicated that they were not complaining of the manner in which the Court of Appeal had calculated the delays but of the derisory amount awarded in damages. 4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5. The application was allocated to a Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Mr V. Zagrebelsky, the judge elected in respect of Italy, withdrew from sitting in the Grand Chamber (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr L. Ferrari Bravo to sit as an ad hoc judge in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 6. On 22 January 2004 the application was declared admissible by a Chamber of the First Section, composed of Mr C.L. Rozakis, Mrs F. Tulkens, Mrs N. Vajić, Mr E. Levits, Mrs S. Botoucharova, Mr A. Kovler, judges, Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, ad hoc judge, and also of Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar. 7. On 10 November 2004 a Chamber of the same Section, composed of Mr C.L. Rozakis, Mr G. Bonello, Mrs F. Tulkens, Mrs N. Vajić, Mr A. Kovler, Mrs E. Steiner, judges, Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, ad hoc judge, and also of Mr S. 8. On 27 January 2005 the Italian Government requested, in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73, that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. On 30 March 2005 a panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. 9. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24. The President of the Court decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the case should be assigned to the same Grand Chamber as the cases of Riccardi Pizzati v. Italy, Musci v. Italy, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 1), Cocchiarella v. Italy, Apicella v. Italy, Ernestina Zullo v. Italy, and Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 2) (applications nos. 62361/00, 64699/01, 64705/01, 64890/01, 64897/01, 65075/01 and 65102/01) (Rules 24, 42 § 2 and 71). To that end the President ordered the parties to form a legal team (see paragraph 2 above). 10. The applicants and the Government each filed a memorial. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Polish, Czech and Slovak Governments, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2). The applicants replied to those comments (Rule 44 § 5). 11. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 29 June 2005 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court:
(a)  for the respondent Government
Mr N. Lettieri,  deputy co-Agent; 
 
(b)  for the applicants
Mr S. de Nigris de Maria, of the Benevento Bar,
 Mr T. Verrilli, of the Benevento Bar,
 Mr C. Marcellino, of the Benevento Bar,
 Mr A. Nardone, of the Benevento Bar,
 Mr V. Collarile, of the Benevento Bar,    Counsel;
 Ms  C. Cavuoto, of the Benevento Bar   Adviser. Ms G. Procaccini, applicant, was also present at the hearing. The Court heard addresses by Mr S. de Nigris de Maria, Mr T. Verrilli and Mr N. Lettieri, and Mr Lettieri’s replies to judges’ questions. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
12. The applicants were born in 1932 and 1938 respectively and live in Benevento. A. The main proceedings
13. On 23 October 1989 Mr G.P., the applicants’ father, brought proceedings against E., a company, in the Benevento District Court to have a contract for the installation of windows in his flat set aside and seeking compensation for the damage incurred. 14. Preparation of the case for trial began on 30 November 1989. Of the eighteen hearings listed between 22 March 1990 and 18 May 1998 three were adjourned by the court of its own motion and three because E.’s lawyer had failed to appear, four were devoted to organising expert evidence, five to hearing evidence from witnesses, one was adjourned because the judge had withdrawn from the case, another one was adjourned because Mr G.P.’s lawyer had failed to appear and a further one was adjourned at his request. The applicants declared their intention to continue the proceedings following Mr G.P.’s death on 27 March 1995. 15. On an unspecified date the case was referred to the bench of judges dealing with the oldest cases (sezione stralcio). Of the six hearings listed between 15 February 1999 and 9 October 2001 two were adjourned by the court of its own motion, one was adjourned by the judge responsible for preparing the case, one was devoted to a request to set the case down for hearing of oral submissions and two to hearing the submissions. 16. In a judgment of 30 May 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 31 October 2002, the court granted the applicants’ claims in part and awarded them 945.40 euros (EUR) in compensation for the damage sustained. B. The “Pinto” proceedings
17. On 10 October 2001 the applicants lodged an application with the Rome Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. The applicants requested the court to rule that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian Government to pay compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicants claimed 25,000,000 Italian lire (EUR 12,911.42) each in non-pecuniary damages plus an unquantified amount for costs and expenses. 18. In a decision of 25 February 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 23 April 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the proceedings had been excessively long. It held as follows:
“Whereas...
 the applicants, as Mr Giuseppe Procaccini’s heirs, continued the proceedings he had instituted in the Benevento District Court by a summons served on 23 October 1989 seeking an order against the defendant company to replace a number of defective frames that it had installed;
– during the proceedings an expert report was ordered and produced;
– the proceedings are still pending before the sezione stralcio bench;
– there has without any doubt been a breach of the reasonable-time requirement in respect of proceedings that have lasted 9 years;
– for want of proof of pecuniary damage, a total amount of 2,250 euros can be awarded under the head of non-pecuniary loss for damage to quality of life plus statutory interest to accrue from the date of the claim, on account of the very low stakes involved in the proceedings.”
The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for pecuniary damages for lack of proof and awarded a global sum of EUR 2,250, on an equitable basis, in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 750 for costs and expenses. That decision was served on 20 December 2002 and became final in February 2003. 19. When payment was not forthcoming, on 26 May 2004 the applicants served notice on the authorities to pay the amounts owed. When that proved unsuccessful they applied for a garnishee order, which was granted them on 12 May 2005 against the Bank of Italy. According to the information provided by the applicants at the hearing on 29 June 2005, the Court of Appeal’s decision had not yet been executed. 20. In a letter of 7 January 2003 the applicants informed the Court of the outcome of the domestic proceedings and asked it to resume its examination of their application. In the same letter the applicants also informed the Court that they did not intend to appeal to the Court of Cassation because an appeal to that court could only be on points of law. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”
21. Award of just satisfaction in the event of a breach of the requirement to dispose of proceedings within a reasonable time and amendment to Article 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure
 
CHAPTER II
 
Just satisfaction
 
Section 2
Entitlement to just satisfaction
“1. Anyone sustaining pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage as a result of a violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by Law no. 848 of 4 August 1955, on account of a failure to comply with the ‘reasonable-time’ requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, shall be entitled to just satisfaction.
2.

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