issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 249 (2014)

09.09.2014

Judgments concerning Italy and Switzerland

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber

judgments¹, none of which is final.

One repetitive case², with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press

release.

The judgments are available only in French.

Carrella v. Italy (application no. 33955/07)

This case concerned the conditions of detention of a prisoner with diabetes.

The applicant, Aniello Carrella, was an Italian national who was born in 1960 and lived in Naples

(Italy) at the time of the events to which this case refers.

Mr Carrella was arrested and remanded in custody on 9 July 2003 on suspicion of drug trafficking

and conspiracy. He was convicted and sentenced to seven years and two months’ imprisonment in

2004, before being acquitted and released in 2008. He died on 13 December 2008 following a road

accident. While in detention he was diagnosed as diabetic and underwent regular medical check-ups

and examinations. In 2006 he complained to the Naples public prosecutor’s office that the treatment

provided to him in prison was inadequate and insufficient.

Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European

Convention on Human Rights, Mr Carrella complained about the conditions of his detention, alleging

in particular that he had not received adequate medical treatment in prison and that as a result of

various errors and omissions, the operation he had needed to undergo had been delayed. He also

complained that the authorities had not considered the possibility, in view of his state of health, of

applying an alternative measure to detention in his case, and that they had taken no action on his

complaint.

No violation of Article 3 (treatment)

No violation of Article 3 (investigation)

Gajtani v. Switzerland (no. 43730/07)

This case concerned international child removal.

The applicant, Violete Gajtani, is a citizen of the Republic of Kosovo³who was born in 1970 and lives

in Skopje (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s

delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five

judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final

judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,

judgments delivered by a Committee are final.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.

Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.

All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations

Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.

Ms Gajtani is the mother of two children born in 1995 and 2002 and initially lived with their father in

“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. On 12 November 2005 she went to live with her

family in Pristina (Kosovo), where she married an Italian national who lived in Switzerland. In April

2006 she moved to Switzerland with her children. The Macedonian Government applied to the Swiss

authorities for the return of the children pursuant to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on

the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The children’s father also applied to the

Guardianship Supervisory Authority for the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland) for the children’s

immediate return. The authority rejected his application, having particular regard to the elder child’s

desire to remain with his mother. On an appeal by the father, that judgment was set aside and the

children’s return to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” was ordered. The appellate court’s

judgment stated that an appeal to the Federal Court could be lodged “within thirty days”. However,

this information was incorrect since the applicable time-limit was in fact ten days. Ms Gajtani, who

was no longer represented by a lawyer, lodged an appeal with the Federal Court within the “thirty-

day” time-limit indicated in the judgment, but her appeal was declared inadmissible as being out of

time. She then applied to the European Court of Human Rights for interim measures under Rule 39

of the Rules of Court, seeking a stay of execution of the order for her children’s return. Her request

was dismissed on 18 October 2007. On the same day, the children were returned to “the former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” without their mother. Following her subsequent divorce, Ms

Gajtani returned to Skopje and is currently living there with her children, who are apparently in

regular contact with their father.

Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Gajtani complained

about her children’s forced removal to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. Under

Article 6 (right to a fair trial), she also complained that the Federal Court had ruled that her appeal

had been out of time even though it was lodged within the time-limit indicated by the lower court.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

No violation of Article 8

Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,000 (costs and expenses)

Repetitive case

The following case raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.

Caligiuri and Others v. Italy (nos. 657/10, 27897/10, 27908/10, and 64297/10)

This case concerned intervention by Parliament to the applicants’ detriment in the course of ongoing

civil proceedings they had brought with a view to securing recognition of their length of service with

local authorities. The applicants are 57 Italian nationals who were previously employed by the

regional civil service and were transferred to the State civil service. Although their actual length of

service should have been recognised by law, the Ministry assigned them a notional length of service,

which resulted in their salaries being lower than those of civil servants already employed by the

Ministry. The applicants applied to the domestic courts, but while the proceedings were pending,

Parliament passed the Finance Act 2006, on the basis of which the domestic courts delivered

decisions that ran counter to the applicants’ claims.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of

property), the applicants complained of the legislation passed in the course of pending proceedings

and alleged that section 1 of the Finance Act 2006 had been applied retrospectively, depriving them

of their possessions by conclusively ending their dispute with the authorities.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1