CASE OF VOCATURO v. ITALY

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission
of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 21 May 1990, within the
three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47
(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an
application (no. 11891/85) against the Italian Republic lodged with
the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a national of that
State, Mr Nicola Vocaturo, on 20 September 1985.
The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48
(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Italy recognised
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46)
(art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as
to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the
respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 para. 1
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33
para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant's wife informed
the registry on 25 July 1990 that her husband had died; she stated
that she wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to take part
in them and be represented by the lawyer she had designated (Rule
30). For reasons of convenience Mr Vocaturo will continue to be
referred to in this judgment as the applicant, although it is now
his widow who is to be regarded as having this status (see, among
other authorities, the Colozza judgment of 12 February 1985, Series
Subsequently, the President gave Mrs Vocaturo and her lawyer
leave to use the Italian language (Rule 27 para. 3).
3. On 24 May 1990 the President of the Court decided that, in the
interests of the proper administration of justice, this case -
together with the Pugliese (II) and Caleffi cases* - should be
considered by the Chamber constituted on 26 March 1990 to hear the
Brigandì, Zanghì and Santilli cases** (Rule 21 para. 6). It
included ex officio Mr C. Russo, the elected judge of Italian
nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and
Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)).
The other seven members, whose names had been drawn by lot, were Mr
J. Cremona, Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert, Mr F.
Gölcüklü, Mr R. Bernhardt, Mr S.K. Martens and Mr J.M. Morenilla
(Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21
para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently, Sir Vincent Evans, substitute
judge, replaced Mr N. Valticos who was unable to take part in the
further consideration of the case and had initially replaced, for
the same reason, Mr Bernhardt (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).
* 25/1990/216/278 and 27/1990/218/280
** 2/1990/193/253, 3/1990/194/254 and 5/1990/196/256
4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal,
through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Italian
Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the Commission and
the lawyer for the applicant on the need for a written procedure
(Rule 37 para. 1). In accordance with the order made in
consequence, the Registrar received the applicant's memorial on 28
September 1990 and the Government's memorial on 15 November. In a
letter received on 18 January 1991 the Secretary to the Commission
informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit his
5. Having consulted, through the Registrar, those who would be
appearing before the Court, the President had directed on
21 November 1990 that the oral proceedings should open
6. On 27 November 1990 the Commission produced the file on the
proceedings before it, as the Registrar had requested on the
7. On 15, 17 and 21 January 1991 five trade union associations
(the provincial organisations of the Confederazione Generale
Italiana del Lavoro, Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori
and Unione Italiana Lavoratori, and also the Associazione sindacale
aziende petrolifere and Consorzio industriale zona Ariccia,
castelli Romani e aree limitrofe) sought leave under Rule 37 para.
2 to submit written comments. On 22 January the President decided
8. The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building,
Strasbourg, on the appointed day. The Court had held a preparatory
There appeared before the Court:
Mr G. Raimondi, magistrato, on secondment to
the Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of
Mr G. Manzo, magistrato, on secondment to the
Mr M. de Stefano, avvocato, Counsel,
Mr R. Vaccarella, avvocato, Adviser.
The Court heard addresses by them, as well as their replies to
9. Mr Nicola Vocaturo, an Italian citizen, lived in Rome until
his death. The facts established by the Commission pursuant to
Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as follows
(paragraphs 15-20 of its report - see paragraph 11 below):
"15. On 26 June 1973, Mr B. brought an action before the Rome
District Court against the "Istituto Nazionale delle
Assicurazioni" (I.N.A.) and against the applicant, the
I.N.A.'s property manager. He sought recognition of his
status as an employee and asked that the I.N.A. and the
applicant, as employers, be ordered to pay the differences in
remuneration to which he claimed to be entitled in respect of
work carried out between 1969 and 1972 at the I.N.A.'s
16. Two hearings took place before the investigating judge on
2 October and 4 December 1973. A third hearing, set for
30 April 1974, did not take place since the examination of the
case had been suspended following the entry into force of Act
17. That Act reformed the procedure in labour relations cases
and amended the rules of jurisdiction in this area,
jurisdiction being given to the magistrate's court (pretore)
at first instance and to the District Court on appeal. For
proceedings pending, section 20 of the Act provided that these
were not to be subject to the changes in jurisdiction, and
authorised the investigating judge to rule himself, sitting as
a single judge, in cases pending at first instance before the
District Court which had not yet reached decision stage.
18. The examination of the applicant's case was resumed only
on 6 February 1978, and on 25 September 1978 he was ordered to
pay 3,524,395 Italian lire, adjusted to allow for currency
devaluation and to include interest at the statutory rate.
19. On 17 October 1979 the applicant appealed to the Rome
Court of Appeal. On 28 March 1980 the Court dismissed his
appeal and ordered him and the I.N.A. jointly and severally to
pay 7,133,925 lire, adjusted to allow for currency devaluation
and to include interest at the statutory rate.
20. On 20 March 1981 the applicant appealed to the Court of
Cassation. The hearing before the Court of Cassation took
place on 29 April 1985. Following that hearing the Court
dismissed the appeal. The text of the judgment was deposited
with the registry on 27 November 1985."
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
10. In his application of 20 September 1985 to the Commission
(no. 11891/85), Mr Vocaturo complained of the length of the civil
proceedings brought against him by Mr B. He relied on Article 6
para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
11. The Commission declared the application admissible on
10 March 1989. In its report of 6 March 1990 (made under
Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the unanimous opinion that
there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The
full text of the Commission's opinion is reproduced as an annex to
* Note by the Registrar. For practical reasons this annex will
appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 206-C
of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the
Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY THE GOVERNMENT
12. At the hearing on 22 January 1991 the Government confirmed the
final submissions in their memorial, and asked the Court to hold
that "there [had] been no breach of the Convention".
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
13. Mr Vocaturo complained that the civil action brought against
him by Mr B. had not been tried within a "reasonable time" as
required under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention,
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time
The Government disputed this view; the Commission on the other
14. The period to be taken into consideration began not on
26 June 1973 when the action against the applicant and I.N.A. was
commenced in the Rome District Court, but on 1 August 1973 when the
Italian declaration recognising the right of individual petition
took effect. In order to determine whether the length of time
which elapsed after that date was reasonable, regard must be had,
however, to the state of the case at that time (see, in particular,
the Brigandì judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-B,
The relevant period ended when the Court of Cassation's
judgment was deposited on 27 November 1985.
15. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be
assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case
and the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law (see, inter
alia, the H. v. France judgment of 24 October 1989, Series A
16. As to the proceedings in the Rome District Court, the
Government maintained that their progress had been retarded by the
coming into force in 1973 of new legislation on labour disputes
which introduced jurisdictional changes. This was an exceptional
factor to be taken into account. The period of over four years
which it took the Court of Cassation to hold a hearing and to come
to a decision was attributable to that Court's excessive workload
and the duty in general to examine cases in the order in which they
were received. In this respect the Government attached great
weight to the fact that Mr Vocaturo did not request priority
The applicant conceded for his part that responsibility for
the periods between 20 October 1978 and 17 October 1979 and between
9 May 1980 and 20 March 1981 could not be attributed to the Italian
authorities; he needed them for preparing the subsequent stages of
the proceedings and negotiating with the opposing party. He also
accepted that the Court of Appeal had reached a decision within a
17. As regards the excessive workload, the Court points out that
under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention everyone has
the right to a final decision within a reasonable time in the
determination of his civil rights and obligations. It is for the
Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way
that their courts can meet this requirement (see, most recently,
the Santilli judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-D,
Employment disputes by their nature call generally for
expeditious decision (see in particular, mutatis mutandis, the
Obermeier judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 23,
para. 72). The Italian authorities moreover acknowledged this by
amending the special procedure used in such cases in 1973; the
changes introduced included a shortening of the time-limits
normally applicable in civil proceedings. In the present case none
of them was complied with. This happened in particular at first
instance and in the Court of Cassation; at both of those levels
there was a period of stagnation of over four years.
There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)
18. According to Article 50 (art. 50),
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a
legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting
Party is completely or partially in conflict with the
obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the
internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation
to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure,
the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just
satisfaction to the injured party."
19. The applicant claimed 500,000 Italian lire in respect of
pecuniary damage and 10,000,000 lire for non-pecuniary damage.
According to the Government, Mr Vocaturo did not suffer any
damage; if a finding were made that there had been a violation,
such a finding would in itself constitute adequate just