FIRST SECTION
CASE OF MARTUCCI AND FALAGARIO v. ITALY
(Applications nos. 15324/17 and 15633/17)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
25 September 2025
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Martucci and Falagario v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Frédéric Krenc, President,
 Raffaele Sabato,
 Alain Chablais, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 15324/17 and 15633/17) 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”) on 17 February 2017 by Ms Anna Maria Cecilia Martucci and Ms Matilde Falagario (“the applicants” – see the appended table for details), represented respectively by Mr G. Chiaia Noya and Mr A. Garofalo, lawyers practising in Bari;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Italian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 4 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applications concern the non-enforcement of a final judgment delivered in the applicants’ favour by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, as well as the failure to grant compensation for the alleged damages resulting from such non-enforcement. 2. The case arose from proceedings initially brought by N.M., the father of the first applicant and husband of the second applicant, challenging the lawfulness of section 1 § 1 of the Ministerial Decree of 2 February 1994. The said provision, enacted pursuant to Article 1 § 1-bis of Law no. 237/1993, limited the State’s assumption of guarantees undertaken by associates of agricultural cooperatives to those cooperatives formally declared insolvent by the date of the decree entering into force. Although insolvency proceedings had already commenced in respect of N.M.’s cooperative before the decree had entered into force, the formal declaration of bankruptcy occurred only afterward, leading the State to deny coverage. Following N.M.’s death, the applicants continued the proceedings as his heirs. 3. In the course of the domestic proceedings, acting in their capacity as heirs, the applicants made the following payments to the creditors of N.M.’s cooperative: (i) 168,904.50 euros (EUR) to bank Caripuglia on 30 May 1996; (ii) EUR 961,900.99 to Banco di Napoli on 31 December 1999; and (iii) EUR 20,000 to Monte dei Paschi di Siena on 31 March 2009. 4. By judgment no. 5899 of 8 April 2010, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court declared the impugned provision unlawful. 5. Subsequently, on 9 December 2010, the applicants requested reimbursement from the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies of the sums they had paid in respect of debts which, in the absence of the provision declared unlawful, ought to have been paid by the State. However, their request was rejected on the ground that only debts still outstanding at the time of the delivery of the judgment of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court could be assumed by the State pursuant to Law no. 237/1993. 6. The applicants then initiated enforcement proceedings (giudizio di ottemperanza), also claiming compensation for the damage allegedly sustained. By judgment no. 3706 of 26 August 2016, the Consiglio di Stato ruled that enforcement of the 2010 judgment was precluded by “legal and factual obstacles”, including the fact that the relevant debts had already been discharged by the applicants and could no longer be assumed by the Ministry. As regards compensation, the Consiglio di Stato likewise dismissed the applicants’ claim, finding that the authorities had acted under an “excusable error” (errore scusabile), due to the lack of clarity and the objectively ambiguous wording of Article 1 § 1-bis of Law no. 237/1993, which had led to conflicting case-law and misled the administration in drafting the implementing Ministerial Decree of 2 February 1994. 7. The applicants complained that the non-enforcement of the final judgment in their favour, combined with the dismissal of their reimbursement request, was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, they further complained that the decision of the domestic courts to reject their claim for compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the unlawful administrative decision had amounted to a disproportionate interference with their “possessions”.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation