FIRST SECTION
CASE OF VOTTA RONZA v. ITALY
(Application no. 38083/10)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
14 November 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Votta Ronza v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 October 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 7 July 2010. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr G. Romano, a lawyer practising in Rome. 3. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision. She also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The applicant complained principally of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in her favour. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7. 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). 8. 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. 9. 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 this complaint. 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 decision in the applicant’s favour. 10. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the same final domestic judgment, which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in the above cited case of Ventorino. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant considers the enforcement of the domestic decision referred to in the appended table as adequate just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award any sum on that account. 13. Therefore, the Court notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decision which remains enforceable.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation