[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> CALEFFI v. ITALY - 11890/85 [1991] ECHR 31 (24 May 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1991/31.html Cite as: [1991] ECHR 31

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the Caleffi case*,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with

Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the

relevant provisions of the Rules of Court***, as a Chamber composed

of the following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr J. Cremona,

Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,

Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Sir Vincent Evans,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr S.K. Martens,

Mr J.M. Morenilla,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 January and 24 April 1991,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 27/1990/218/280. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since

its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating

applications to the Commission.

** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came

into force on 1 January 1990.

*** The amendments to the Rules of Court which came into force on

1 April 1989 are applicable to this case.

_______________

PROCEDURE

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. 11890/85) against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a national

of that State, Mr Massimo Caleffi, 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 (art. 6-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33

para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he

wished to take part in the proceedings and designated his lawyer

(Rule 30). On 25 July 1990 the President gave him 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 Vocaturo 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).

_________________

Notes by the Registrar

* 25/1990/216/278 and 28/1990/219/281

** 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 observations at the hearing.

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

on 22 January 1991 (Rule 38).

6. On 27 November 1990 the Commission produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as the Registrar had requested on the

President's instructions.

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 not to grant them leave.

8. The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights

Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day. The Court had held a

preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr G. Raimondi, magistrato, on secondment to

the Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, Co-Agent,

Mr G. Manzo, magistrato, on secondment to

the Ministry of Justice, Counsel;

(b) for the Commission

Mr G. Sperduti, Delegate;

(c) for the applicant

Mr M. de Stefano, avvocato, Counsel,

Mr R. Vaccarella, avvocato, Adviser.

The Court heard addresses by them, as well as their replies to its

questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mr Massimo Caleffi, an Italian citizen, lives in Rome.

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 21 November 1977 the applicant brought an action against

[Società italiana degli autori ed editori (S.I.A.E.)], by which he

was employed, before the Rome magistrate's court (pretore), seeking

recognition of his right to a professional qualification

corresponding to the work he had been doing since 1 April 1972 and

payment of a sum equivalent to the resulting difference in

remuneration.

16. On 26 September 1979 the Court ordered [S.I.A.E.] to pay the

sum of 15,433,243 Italian lire, calculated to allow for inflation

and including interest at the statutory rate.

17. [S.I.A.E.] made the payment but on 18 December 1979 it appealed

against the magistrate's court's decision. This decision was

completely reversed by a decision of the Rome District Court of

20 May 1980, which refused all the applicant's demands. The text

of the decision was deposited with the registry on

27 September 1980.

18. On 19 December 1980 the applicant appealed to the Court of

Cassation. On 6 February 1984 the Court of Cassation granted the

appeal and referred the case to the Velletri District Court.

The text of the judgment was deposited with the registry on

17 April 1984.

19. On 11 April 1985 the applicant requested the court to which the

case had been referred to order [S.I.A.E.] to pay the sum of

79,311,490 lire, which he alleged was due to him for the period

from 1979 until his retirement on 8 February 1983.

20. The hearing before the relevant division of the court was set

for 16 December 1985. On 29 May 1985 the parties' representatives

requested that the hearing be brought forward in order for a

friendly settlement of the case to be effected. On 1 June 1985

this request was acceded to and the hearing was brought forward to

1 July 1985. On that date the applicant agreed to relinquish any

claim against [S.I.A.E.] in exchange for the sum of 20,908,784 lire

and for reimbursement of the procedural costs and lawyers' fees."

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

10. In his application of 20 September 1985 to the Commission

(no. 11890/85), Mr Caleffi complained of the length of the civil

proceedings he had brought. 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

this judgment*.

_______________

* Note by the Registrar: For practical reasons this annex will

appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 206-B

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".

AS TO THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)

13. Mr Caleffi complained that his civil action had not been

tried within a "reasonable time" as required under Article 6

para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...

everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by

[a] ... tribunal ..."

The Government disputed this view; the Commission on the other hand

agreed with it.

14. The period to be taken into consideration began on

21 November 1977 when S.I.A.E. was summoned to appear before the

magistrate's court. It ended on 1 July 1985 when a friendly

settlement was reached.

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

no. 162, p. 21, para. 50).

16. According to the Government, the period in question

considered as a whole was not unreasonable, as the dispute was

heard by four courts. The period of over three years which it took

the Court of Cassation to hold a hearing could be explained by that

Court's excessive workload and the duty in general to examine cases

in the order in which they were received. As for the eight months

that the court to which the case was then referred took to fix a

hearing date, this period too resulted from the number of cases on

the list and the time the registry had to wait before receiving the

documents in the case.

The applicant conceded that responsibility for the periods between

27 September and 19 December 1980 and between 17 April 1984

and 11 April 1985 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.

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,

p. 61, para. 20).

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 was particularly so during the cassation

proceedings, when over three years elapsed before the hearing

(19 December 1980 - 6 February 1984).

There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1).

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."

A. Damage

19. The applicant claimed 10,000,000 Italian lire as

compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

According to the Government, a finding that there had been a

violation would in itself constitute adequate just satisfaction.

The Commission left the matter to be determined by the Court.

The Court considers that the applicant undoubtedly suffered

non-pecuniary damage. Making an assessment on an equitable basis,

it awards him the amount claimed.

B. Costs and expenses

20. Mr Caleffi also claimed 3,000,000 lire for costs and

expenses incurred before the Convention organs.

Having regard to the evidence in its possession and its relevant

case-law, the Court awards him the amount sought.

C. Publication of the judgment

21. Finally, the applicant requested that the present judgment

be published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica italiana

and in the principal national daily newspapers. The Commission's

Delegate made no observations on this point.

The Court, agreeing with the Government, finds that it has no

jurisdiction under the Convention to order the Italian State to

take such measures (see, mutatis mutandis, the Zanghì judgment of

19 January 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 48, para. 26).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1);

2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to Mr Caleffi

10,000,000 (ten million) Italian lire in respect of non-pecuniary

damage and 3,000,000 (three million) lire for costs and expenses;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in

the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 24 May 1991.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar