Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)261

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Vanessa Tierce against San Marino

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;

Case name (App. No.)	Judgment of	Final on	
Vanessa Tierce (69700/01)	17/06/2003	3/12/2003	

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;

Having invited the authorities of the respondent state to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;

Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see appendix);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)261

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Vanessa Tierce against San Marino

ORIGINAL FRENCH

ACTION REPORT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SAN MARINO
ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT

69700/01 	Vanessa Tierce, judgment of 17 June 2003, final on 3 December 2003

The applicant is a French citizen who complained of the excessive duration of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The Court observed that the reason for the length of the proceedings was principally the complexity of civil procedure in San Marino, characterised by the requirement to respect a number of procedural stages and by the limited power of civil judges in case of inactivity by the parties.

On 12 September 2003, the Government moved to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court. The committee of five judges of the Grand Chamber decided on 3 December 2003 not to accede to the request and accordingly the judgment of 17 June 2003 became final on 3 December 2003.

Individual measures

Just satisfaction: payment to the applicant of the just satisfaction, fixed by the Court at € 2500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, was made within the time-limit set that is, on 3 March 2004 (accredito con valuta 3 marzo 2004). The Court granted no just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage or costs (§36 of the Court’s judgment of 17 June 2003).

The proceedings are closed. No further individual measure is necessary.

General measures

Concerning the length of proceedings (violation of Article 6§1), the Government has informed the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the measures adopted to avoid similar violations (memorandum by the Principal Magistrate of the Tribunal of San Marino of 20 April 2011).

Statistical analysis
In the document mentioned, the Tribunal presents a statistical analysis covering several years, from 2004 to 2010. The official data demonstrates, in particular, that the percentage of proceedings completed (including those opened in preceding years) has undergone a progressive increase compared with civil proceedings presented in the course of the year of reference. It is thus possible to confidently deduce an increase in the “productivity” of civil judges in the course of the years under examination. This implies increased efficiency of the San Marino judicial system following the measures adopted, particularly Law No. 145 of 28 October 2005, adopted following the Court’s judgment in this case and on the basis of guidelines drawn up by a Commission established by decision of the national Parliament on 30 June 2004. This Law is part of a series of measures which have undoubtedly improved the system, making it more efficient with regard to the promptness of civil judgments.

Legislative reform of 28 October 2005
Law No. 145 of 28 October 2005, mentioned above, brought in procedural and organisational changes to the judicial system which influenced the trial process with a view to shortening it. Procedurally speaking, the most important change concerns the lapse of the time allotted to a court to deal with a case (perenzione d’instanza, Article 2 of the Law) which is no longer declared only at the request of a party, but which is now provided by law and must be declared by the judge. In such cases the judge is therefore required to state this fact, thus considerably limiting parties’ power to draw proceedings out. In precise terms, the lapse occurs if no judgment is pronounced within 90 hearings from the beginning of the dispute. A statement of lapse does not extinguish the civil action; it merely annuls the action taken by the court in question, rendering the judicial acts performed without effect. It is thus possible to present it before a fresh court, provided that is has not become time-barred in the meantime.

It is no longer possible for parties to prolong cases through inactivity and such inactivity, if established, is punished by the ineffectiveness of all judicial actions completed during the proceedings. Under the new rules, the lapse of the allotted time is more efficient than previously because it is the judge who declares it ex officio.

As regards judicial organisation, Articles 3 and 4 of the Law of 2005 have lightened the workload of the Law Commissioners by doubling the sum for which judge-mediators may be competent to € 50 000, and by giving appeal judges competence to judge appeals against decisions of judge-mediators at second instance, thus eliminating the competence for re-examination formerly attributed by precedence to the Law Commissioners in such cases. The reduction in the Commissioners’ case-load through this redistribution of competence to other magistrates clearly responds to the need for a guaranteed reduction of the duration of civil proceedings.

The Court’s judgment was translated into Italian and published ad valvas palatii (“on the palace doors”) i.e. the usual practice, as indicated by a memorandum from the Department of Internal Affairs of 8 April 2011.

* * *

In the light of this information, the Government considers that it has taken the measures necessary and that accordingly the phase of execution of this judgment should be closed as soon as possible.