issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 172 (2016)
26.05.2016
Judgments and decisions of 26 May 2016
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three judgments1 and 26 decisions2
:
one Chamber judgment is summarised below;
for one decision, in the case of Dupré v. France (application no. 77032/12), a separate press release
has been issued;
two Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,
The judgment below is available only in French.
Just Satisfaction
M.C. and Others v. Italy (no. 5376/11)
The applicants are 162 Italian nationals. The case concerned their inability to obtain an annual
adjustment of the supplementary part of a compensation allowance (IIS) paid to them after they
were accidentally contaminated as a result of blood transfusions or the administration of blood
derivatives.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained that the
Government, in enacting legislative decree no. 78/2010, had intervened in an area which was the
subject of legal debate and which had given rise to numerous cases to which the Government
themselves had been a party. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they
argued that, if not adjusted, the IIS would gradually lose its value. Under Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination), taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they complained that they had been
victims of discrimination.
In its judgment on the merits of 3 September 2013 the Court held that there had been a violation of
Articles 6 § 1 and 14 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 since, in intervening to enact legislation while
the judicial proceedings against the Minister of Health were pending, the legislature had interpreted
the law in a manner favourable to the Government.
Today’s judgment concerns the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the
Convention.
Just satisfaction: Taking note of the friendly settlement reached between the Italian Government
and the applicants, the Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases insofar as the
Article 41 (just satisfaction) procedure was concerned.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
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
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
