[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> F.M. v. ITALY - 12784/87 [1992] ECHR 57 (23 September 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/57.html Cite as: [1992] ECHR 57

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of F.M. v. Italy*,

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. Bernhardt, President,

Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr S.K. Martens,

Mrs E. Palm,

Mr F. Bigi,

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

Deputy Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 September 1992,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on

that date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 10/1992/355/429. 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.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European

Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on

13 April 1992, 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. 12784/87)

against the Italian Republic lodged with the Commission under

Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national, Mrs F.M.,

on 2 March 1987.

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. On 25 April 1992 the President of the Court decided that,

pursuant to Rule 21 para. 6 of the Rules of Court and in the

interests of the proper administration of justice, this case

and the cases of Pizzetti, De Micheli, Salesi, Trevisan, Billi

and M. v. Italy* should be heard by the same Chamber.

_______________

* Cases nos. 8/1992/353/427; 9/1992/354/428; 11/1992/356/430

to 14/1992/359/433

_______________

3. The Chamber to be constituted for this purpose 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)). On the same day, in the presence of the Registrar, the

President drew by lot the names of the other seven members,

namely Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mr F. Matscher, Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Mr N. Valticos, Mr S.K. Martens, Mrs E. Palm and Mr F. Bigi

(Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4)

(art. 43).

4. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber

(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Deputy Registrar, consulted

the Agent of the Italian Government ("the Government") and the

Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the

procedure (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). On 27 July 1992 the

Government informed the Registrar that they wished to refer

the Court to their observations before the Commission.

5. On 13 April the Registrar had sent to the applicant the

enquiry provided for in Rule 33 para. 3 (d). On 17 July 1992

Mrs M.'s lawyer informed him that his client had died and that

he had not succeeded in discovering any heirs. Consequently,

the President instructed the Registrar to obtain the opinion

of the Government and the Delegate of the Commission regarding

the possibility of striking the case out of the list (Rule 49

para. 2). Their replies reached the registry on

3 September and 20 August respectively.

6. The Chamber, sitting on 21 September and presided over by

the Vice-President of the Court, Mr R. Bernhardt, in place of

Mr Ryssdal, who was unable to take part in the further

consideration of the case (Rule 21 para. 5, second

sub-paragraph), decided to dispense with the hearing set down

for that date. It had found that the conditions for such a

derogation from the usual procedure were satisfied (Rules 26

and 38).

AS TO THE FACTS

7. Until her death Mrs F.M. lived at Pomezia (Rome

province). The facts established by the Commission pursuant

to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as

follows (paragraphs 15-17 of its report):

"15. On 5 February 1986, the applicant, a disabled

civilian, instituted proceedings against the Minister of

the Interior before the Rome magistrate's court (pretore)

... ."

[She sought payment under Law no. 18 of 11 February 1980

of an attendance allowance (indennità di accompagnamento)

which the Latium social security authorities had refused

her.]

"16. The taking of evidence began at the hearing of

14 April 1986 and closed, after the medical report

ordered by the judge had been submitted, at the hearing

of 13 October 1986. On that date the Rome magistrate's

court ordered the Minister of the Interior to pay the

allowance claimed. The decision was deposited with the

registry on 19 December 1986.

17. On 10 January 1987 the Minister of the Interior

appealed against the above decision and, on

15 January 1987, the President of the Rome District Court

arranged for the appeal to be heard by the competent

division of the court on 25 January 1989. On that date

the appeal by the Minister of the Interior was

dismissed."

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

8. Mrs F.M. lodged her application with the Commission

on 2 March 1987. She complained of the length of the

proceedings instituted by her and relied on Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention.

9. On 2 July 1990 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12784/87) admissible. In its report of 20 February 1992

(made under Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion,

by thirteen votes to eight, that there had been a violation of

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The full text of the

Commission's opinion and the separate opinions contained in

the report 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 245-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court),

but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the

registry.

_______________

AS TO THE LAW

10. By a letter of 17 July 1992, Mr Angelozzi, the

applicant's lawyer before the Commission, informed the

Registrar that he had learned of Mrs M.'s death and that it

had proved impossible to discover any heirs.

The Government were consulted and expressed the view that

the case should be struck out of the list pursuant to Rule 49

para. 2 of the Rules of Court.

The Delegate of the Commission did not submit any

observations.

11. According to Rule 49 para. 2:

"When the Chamber is informed of a friendly settlement,

arrangement or other fact of a kind to provide a solution

of the matter, it may, after consulting, if necessary,

the Parties, the Delegates of the Commission and the

applicant, strike the case out of the list."

The applicant's death and the failure of the attempts

made to discover any heirs constitute facts "of a kind to

provide a solution of the matter" (see the Macaluso and

Manunza v. Italy judgments of 3 December 1991, Series A

no. 223-A and B).

In addition, the Court discerns no reason of ordre public

(public policy) for continuing the proceedings (Rule 49

para. 4). In this connection it points out that in a number

of previous cases it has had occasion to review the

"reasonableness" of the length of judicial proceedings in

various Contracting States, including Italy. In so doing it

specified the nature and the extent of the obligations arising

in this context from Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention. Furthermore, the cases of Pizzetti, De Micheli,

Salesi, Trevisan, Billi, M., Scuderi, M.R. and Massa v. Italy

are still pending before it. These are cases which raise

similar questions and in which the Court will shortly give

judgment.

Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Decides to strike the case out of the list.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing

under Rule 55 para. 2, second sub-paragraph, of the Rules of

Court on 23 September 1992.

Signed: Rudolf BERNHARDT

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar