003-5385894-6732295

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,   and the remaining 25 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   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.   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   2