FIRST SECTION

CASE OF VALVO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

(Applications nos. 46043/13 and 45100/17)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

28 November 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Valvo and Others v. Italy,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Erik Wennerström,
 Alain Chablais, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 November 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Italy lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Italian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

3.  Some of the applicants died after the institution of the proceedings before the Court and their heirs (see the appended table below) wished to pursue the applications in their stead. The Government did not object against the locus standi of the heirs in the proceedings.

THE FACTS

4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5.  Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention of the impossibility of lodging an application under Law No. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, pending the main proceedings.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

6.  The relevant domestic law and practice can be found in Verrascina and Others v. Italy (nos. 15566/13 and 5 others, §§ 6-8, 28 April 2022).

THE LAW

1.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

7.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. preliminary issues

8.  The Court takes note of the information regarding the death of the applicants Ms Rosaria Valvo and M Alfonso Vagliviello and of the wish of their heirs to continue the proceedings in their stead, as well as of the absence of an objection to that wish on the Government’s part.

9.  Therefore, the Court considers that the heirs have standing to continue the proceedings on behalf of the deceased.

10.  However, for practical reasons, reference will still be made to the applicants throughout the ensuing text.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

12.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

13.  In the leading case of Cocchiarella v. Italy ([GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006‑V), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

14.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

15.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

4. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

16.  The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective remedy. 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.

17.  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Verrascina and Others (cited above, §§ 23, 26 and 30).

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Cocchiarella, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that the heirs indicated in the appended table have standing to pursue the proceedings in the stead of the deceased applicants;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the complaints raised under Article 13 of the Convention;
6. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants or their heirs, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 November 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Georgios A. Serghides

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

Heir in application no. 46043/13

Heirs in application no. 45100/17

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.