SERVIZI ECOLOGICI DI MARCHESE GIOSE' proti Itálii

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF SERVIZI ECOLOGICI DI MARCHESE GIOSÈ v. ITALY

(Applications nos. 12341/23 and 13626/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 May 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Servizi Ecologici di Marchese Giosè v. Italy,

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

Artūrs Kučs, President,
Raffaele Sabato,
Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

• PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Italy lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the same date indicated in the appended table.

2. The applicant company was represented by Mr F. Verri, a lawyer practising in Crotone.

3. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

• THE FACTS

4. The applicant company’s details and information relevant to the applications are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of or delayed payment of a debt by State authorities.

• THE LAW
  1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

7. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant company complained principally of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions issued in its favour against the debtor companies listed in the appended table.

8. The Court observes at the outset that the respondent Government did not raise any objection as to the incompatibility ratione personae of the present application with the provisions of the Convention or of its Protocols. However, the Court considers it necessary to determine whether the State can be held responsible for the non-enforcement of the decisions issued against the debtor companies.

9. The applicable criteria are set out in the Court’s judgments, including Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 60642/08, §§ 114-15, 6 November 2012), Mikhaïlenki and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 35091/02 and 9 others, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2004‑XII), and Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova (no. 39745/02, §§ 17-19, 3 April 2007).

10. Having regard to the above‑mentioned case-law, the Court notes that the debtor companies were established at the initiative of public authorities to carry out separate waste-collection activities. Their corporate purpose consisted in the direct management of municipal services in the sector of integrated waste-management and urban sanitation, which, in the Court’s view, indicates that the debtor companies were instruments employed by the municipalities to carry out public activities. Furthermore, the majority of the companies’ share capital was held by public entities, which also retained control over the companies. The Court concludes that these elements are sufficient to establish the substantially public nature of the debtor company and that the State must be held liable for its debts towards the applicant.

11. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).

12. In the leading cases of Ventorino v. Italy, no. 357/07, 17 May 2011, De Trana v. Italy, no. 64215/01, 16 October 2007, Nicola Silvestri v. Italy, no. 16861/02, 9 June 2009, Antonetto v. Italy, no. 15918/89, 20 July 2000 and De Luca v. Italy, no. 43870/04, 24 September 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

13. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicant’s favour.

14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER article 1 of protocol no. 1

15. The applicant company also complained of the lack of or delayed payment by State authorities of a debt that had been admitted by domestic courts to the statement of liabilities of the publicly controlled debtor companies listed in the appended table. It relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

16. In the leading cases of Buffalo S.r.l. in liquidation v. Italy (no. 38746/97, 3 July 2003), and Diaco and Lenchi v. Italy (nos. 15587/10 and 2 others, §§ 47-49 and 74-76, 11 December 2025), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. In particular, it considered that an excessive delay in the payment of a debt, combined with the absence of any effective remedy capable of addressing the length of that delay, and the uncertainty as to when the credit would be paid, upset the fair balance that must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the right to respect for property.

17. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the interference with the applicant’s “possessions” was disproportionate, as the delay in the payment of the debts weighed on the applicant company for a period of time that cannot be regarded as reasonable.

18. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ventorino, De Trana, Nicola Silvestri, Antonetto, and Buffalo S.r.l. in liquidation, all cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

20. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable and to pay the overdue debts.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the lack of or delayed payment of a debt by State authorities;
5. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions and the payment of the overdue debts referred to in the appended table;
6. Holds
   1. that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;
   2. that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Artūrs Kučs

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.