FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 27984/23
Gianpiero PASQUARIELLO and Giulio MAZZITELLI
against Italy

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 December 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Erik Wennerström,
 Alain Chablais, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 June 2023,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicants, relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, complained that the domestic decisions (indicated in the appended table) issued in their favour remained unenforced.

Following communication of these complaints to the Government, the latter provided documents showing that six out of seven of the domestic decisions had been enforced more than four months before the lodging of the application with the Court. The applicants did not comment.

The Court reiterates that it may raise and examine by it proprio motu the question of the possible abuse of the right of individual application (see, by way of example, Gevorgyan and Others v. Armenia ((dec.), no. 66535/10, § 32, 14 January 2020). The relevant principles applicable to the abuse of a right of individual application have been summarised in the Court’s judgments Gross v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 67810/10, ECHR 2014) and Zhdanov and Others v. Russia (nos. 12200/08 and 2 others, 16 July 2019).

Having regard to the documents and information submitted by the Government, the Court considers that they concern the very core of the case and could not be ignored when assessing whether the application had been lodged within the four-month time-limit provided by Article 35 §1 of the Convention.

The Court further notes that the applicants did not provide any explanation for the failure to mention in their application the fact that the legal fees awarded with regard to six of the domestic decisions at issue had already been paid.

The Court finds that by omitting to disclose the information in question, the applicants failed to inform the Court at the outset of factors essential for the examination of the case, thereby preventing it from ruling on the case in full knowledge of the facts (see Gross, cited above; Gevorgyan and Others, cited above; and Safaryan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 16346/10, § 24, 14 January 2020).

In light of the above, the Court finds appropriate to reject the entire application as an abuse of the right of individual application, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 January 2025.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Georgios A. Serghides
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)