003-437236-437879

WyrokETPCz2001-10-25

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy niemożność odzyskania zaległych wynagrodzeń i brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego we włoskim systemie sądowym naruszyły prawo do ochrony własności (art. 1 Protokołu nr 1) oraz prawo do skutecznego środka odwoławczego (art. 13 Konwencji)?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał uznał, że niemożność odzyskania zaległych wynagrodzeń nie stanowiła naruszenia prawa do ochrony własności, co sugeruje, że roszczenie to nie było wystarczająco ugruntowane lub nie spełniało kryteriów 'mienia' w rozumieniu art. 1 Protokołu nr 1, lub też ingerencja była proporcjonalna. Jednakże, Trybunał jednomyślnie stwierdził naruszenie art. 13, co oznacza, że włoski system prawny nie zapewnił skarżącemu skutecznego środka odwoławczego, który pozwoliłby mu dochodzić swoich roszczeń w sposób zgodny z wymogami Konwencji. Trybunał uznał za zbędne rozpatrywanie skargi w kontekście art. 6 ust. 1.

Stan faktyczny

Alfio Saggio, obywatel Włoch, skarżył się, że nie był w stanie odzyskać zaległych wynagrodzeń w wysokości 127 364 132 ITL. Twierdził również, że włoski system sądowniczy nie zapewnił mu skutecznego środka odwoławczego w tej sprawie, co uniemożliwiło mu efektywne dochodzenie swoich roszczeń.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Trybunał stwierdził brak naruszenia art. 1 Protokołu nr 1 (głosowanie 5 do 2). Trybunał uznał, że nie ma potrzeby rozpatrywania skargi na podstawie art. 6 ust. 1 (jednomyślnie). Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 13 (jednomyślnie). Trybunał zasądził skarżącemu 10 000 000 ITL za szkodę niemajątkową oraz 6 919 320 ITL za koszty i wydatki.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 765 25.10.2001 Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Greece, Italy and Portugal The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 87 Chamber judgments (of which only the friendly settlements are final[1]): SECTION 2 (1) Saggio v. Italy (no. 41879/98) No violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation Article 13 Alfio Saggio, an Italian national, complained that he had been unable to claim back-payments of his salary amounting to ITL 127,364,132 and that the Italian judicial system did not provide him with an effective remedy. The European Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to consider the applicant’s complaint raised under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and awarded the applicant ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 6,919,320 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French). (2) E. H. v. Greece (no. 42079/98) Violation Article 6 §1 E. H., a Greek national born in 1963 and living in Veroia (Greece), complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court and the First Instance Administrative Court of Veroia. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 1,500,000 Greek drachmas (GRD) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.) (3) Tiburzi v. Greece (no. 49222/99) Friendly Settlement Alberta Tiburzi, an Italian national, complained about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party, relying on Article 6 § 1. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which GRD 2,000,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation Article 6 §1 In the following eighty-one Italian cases, the applicants, all Italian nationals complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant the following amounts in Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French). SECTION 2 Non-pecuniary costs and Damage expenses (4) Massimo v. Italy no. 1 (no. 44343/98) ITL 20,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (5) Rinaudo and others v. Italy (no. 44345/98) ITL 8,000,000 ITL 4,000,000 (6) Venturini v. Italy no. 2 (no. 44346/98) ITL 8,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (7) Massimo v. Italy no. 2 (no. 44352/98) ITL 20,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (8) Centineo v. Italy (no. 44377/98) ITL 15,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (9) Finessi v. Italy (no. 44379/98) ITL 15,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (10) Raffa v. Italy (no. 44381/98) ITL 25,000,000 ‑‑ (11) Alicino v. Italy (no. 44383/98) ITL 20,000,000 ‑‑ (12) Valvo and Branca v. Italy (no. 44384/98) ITL 25,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (13) Scarfone v. Italy (no. 44389/98) ITL 20,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (14) Servodidio v. Italy (no. 44402/98) ITL 12,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (15) Guerrera v. Italy no. 1 (no. 44403/98) ITL 10,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (16) Rizzo v. Italy (no. 44409/98) ITL 30,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (17) Quattrone v. Italy (no. 44412/98) ITL 30,000,000 ‑‑ (18) Di Sisto v. Italy (no. 44414/98) ITL 15,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (19) Napolitano v. Italy (no. 44415/98) ITL 17,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (20) Viola v. Italy (no. 44416/98) ITL 15,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (21) Guerrera v. Italy no. 2 (no. 44423/98) ITL 1,000,000 ITL 24,000,000 (22) Follo v. Italy (no. 44424/98) ITL 35,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (23) Mel Sud S.r.l. v. Italy (no. 44438/98) ITL 12,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (24) G.C. v. Italy (no. 44441/98) ITL 70,000,000 ITL 2,000,000 (25) Pastore v. Italy (no. 44444/98) ITL 35,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (26) Castrogiovanni v. Italy (no. 44448/98) ITL 10,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (27) De Simine v. Italy (no. 44455/98) ITL 1,200,000 ITL 1,000,000 (28) Vairano v. Italy (no. 44459/98) ITL 35,000,000 ITL 4,000,000 (29) Seminara v. Italy (no. 44467/98) ITL 25,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 SECTION 4 Non-pecuniary costs and Damage expenses (30) I.P.E.A. S.r.l. v. Italy (no. 44418/98) ITL 20,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (31) Galasso v. Italy (no. 44421/98) ITL 25,000,000 ‑‑ (32) Di Girolamo and others v. Italy (no. 44446/98) ITL 35,000,000 ITL 700,000 (33) Porcelli v. Italy (no. 44454/98) ITL 30,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (34) Atzori v. Italy (no. 44456/98) ITL 20,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (35) Bartolini v. Italy (no. 44458/98) ITL 30,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (36) Condominio Città di Prato v. Italy (no. 44460/98) ITL 40,000,000 ITL 4,000,000 (37) Paolelli v. Italy no. 2 (no. 44463/98) ITL 16,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (38) Ascolinio v. Italy (no. 44469/98) ITL 25,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (39) Troiani v. Italy (no. 44478/98) ITL 20,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (40) Rosetti e Ciucci & C. v. Italy (no. 44479/98) ITL 8,000,000 ITL 4,000,000 (41) E.G. v. Italy (no. 44480/98) ITL 21,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (42) Spera v. Italy no. 2 (no. 44487/98) ITL 45,000,000 ‑‑ (43) Siper S.r.l. v. Italy (no. 44493/98) ITL 12,000,000 ‑‑ (44) Di Francesco v. Italy (no. 44495/98) ITL 8,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (45) Masala v. Italy (no. 44496/98) ITL 50,000,000 ITL 4,000,000 (46) Galgani and De Matteis v. Italy no. 2 (no. 44497/98) ITL 65,000,000 ITL 2,000,000 (47) Mantini v. Italy (no. 44498/98) ITL 15,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (48) Pomante Pappalepore v. Italy (no. 44499/98) ITL 30,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (49) Il Messaggero S.a.s. v. Italy (no. 44501/98) ITL 10,000,000 ‑‑ (50) O.B. v. Italy (no. 44506/98) ITL 50,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (51) Musti and Iarossi v. Italy (no. 44507/98) ITL 10,000,000 ITL 1,500,000 (52) Il Messaggero S.a.s. v. Italy no 7 (no. 44508/98) ITL 10,000,000 ‑‑ (53) D'Ammassa and Frezza v. Italy (no. 44513/98) ITL 25,000,000 ITL 2,000,000 (54) Stefanini v. Italy (no. 44518/98) ‑‑ ITL 5,315,000 (55) G.F and others v. Italy (no. 44522/98) ITL 8,400,000 ITL 1,250,000 (56) F.C. and F.G. v. Italy (no. 44523/98) ITL 10,000,000 ITL 100,000 (57) Ferrari v. Italy no. 2 (no. 44525/98) ITL 75,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (58) Iacovelli v. Italy (no. 44530/98) ITL 25,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (59) Rongoni v. Italy (no. 44531/98) ITL 12,000,000 ITL 500,000 (60) Venturini v. Italy (no. 44535/98) ITL 12,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (61) Am.M. and S.I. v. Italy (no. 49353/99) ITL 25,000,000 ‑‑ (62) Morelli and Levantesi v. Italy (no. 49354/99) ITL 40,000,000 ITL 2,500,000 (63) Di Fabio v. Italy (no. 49355/99) ITL 12,000,000 ‑‑ (64) Valenti v. Italy (no. 49356/99) ITL 40,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (65) Rizio v. Italy (no. 49357/99) ITL 5,000,000 ITL 2,000,000 (66) Bini v. Italy (no. 49358/99) ITL 25,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (67) Iannetti v. Italy (no. 49359/99) ITL 12,000,000 ‑‑ (68) Salvi v. Italy (no. 49360/99) ITL 12,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (69) Rosa v. Italy (no. 49361/99) ITL 70,000,000 ITL 6,000,000 (70) Baldi v. Italy (no. 49362/99) ITL 8,000,000 ITL 1,000,000 (71) Marinelli v. Italy (no. 49364/99) ITL 20,000,000 ‑‑ (72) Mari v. Italy no. 2 (no. 49365/99) ITL 50,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (73) De Santis v. Italy no. 1 (no. 49366/99) ITL 12,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (74) De Santis v. Italy no. 2 (no. 49367/99) ITL 25,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (75) Savanna and La Selva v. Italy (no. 49368/99) ITL 12,000,000 ITL 2,364,731 (76) Baroni and Michinelli v. Italy (no. 49369/99) ITL 15,000,000 (per applicant) ITL 2,500,000 (per applicant) (77) Marcantoni v. Italy (no. 49370/99) ITL 15,000,000 ITL 4,000,000 (78) Alfonsetti v. Italy (no. 49371/99) ITL 12,000,000 ‑‑ (79) De Pilla v. Italy (no. 49372/99) ITL 10,000,000 ITL 5,000,000 (80) Franco v. Italy (no. 49373/99) ITL 10,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (81) Chinnici v. Italy (no. 49374/99) ITL 15,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (82) Consalvo v. Italy (no. 49375/99) ITL 10,000,000 ITL 3,000,000 (83) Lilla Santilli v. Italy (no. 49376/99) ITL 20,000,000 ITL 628,000 (84) Barnaba v. Italy (no. 49377/99) ITL 16,000,000 ITL 4,000,000 In the following three Portuguese cases, the applicants, all Portuguese nationals, complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties. They relied on Article 6 § 1, claiming their civil rights were not decided within a reasonable time. (The judgments are available only in French.) (85) Coelho Alves v. Portugal (no. 46248/99) Friendly settlement The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 700,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 150,000 for costs and expenses. (86) Themudo Barata v. Portugal no. 2 (no. 46773/99) Friendly settlement The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 600,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 200,000 for costs and expenses. (87) Pires v. Portugal (no. 43654/98) Violation Article 6 § 1 The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant PTE 1,700,000 for non-pecuniary damage and PTE 250,000 for costs and expenses. *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91 The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.