12.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Pianello Val Tidone (Piacenza). 13.  On 8 April 1974 the applicant sued Mr P. in the Piacenza District Court seeking damages for the loss she had sustained as a result of works carried out by her neighbour which had resulted, among other things, in sewage being dumped on her property. 14.  Preparation of the case for trial began on 11 May 1974. Of the sixty- six hearings listed between 11 November 1974 and 15 June 1995 nineteen were adjourned at the request of the parties, three at the request of the applicant, two at the request of Mr P., four by the court of its own motion, and one on account of a lawyers’ strike; twelve were devoted to organising expert evidence, twelve to the filing of documents and the hearing of witnesses, twelve to attempts to seek a friendly settlement, and one was adjourned in order to allow the parties to make their submissions. 15.  In the meantime Mr P.’s lawyer had filed a death certificate with the registry in respect of his client. At a hearing on 29 February 1996 the judge declared the proceedings interrupted. The proceedings were resumed on 25 September 1996 and the judge fixed 11 June 1998 as the date for hearing submissions. On an unspecified date the case was referred to the bench of judges dealing with the oldest cases (sezioni stralcio). At a hearing on 18 November 1999 the parties requested that a date be fixed for hearing oral submissions and the judge adjourned the case to 8 June 2000. The hearing was not held on that date, but adjourned to 12 June 2000. On that date judgment was reserved. 16.  In a judgment of 23 October 2000, the text of which was deposited with the registry on the same day, the Piacenza Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and ordered Mr P.’s heir to move the septic tank that had not been installed at the prescribed distance and to replace part of the applicant’s sullage pipes. It also awarded her 15,000,000 Italian lire (7,747 euros (EUR)). 17.  On 17 October 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Ancona Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. The applicant requested the court to conclude that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian Government to pay compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicant claimed 200,000,000 Italian lire (EUR 103,291.37) in non-pecuniary damages and an unquantified amount for costs and expenses. 18.  In a decision of 31 January 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 13 February 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the proceedings had been excessively long. It held as follows:
“In the instant case, even if the proceedings are not entirely straightforward given the subject of the proceedings (a bitter dispute between neighbours), which has given rise to many attempts at conciliation, hearings of witnesses and an expert report, the length of the proceedings - over 26 years – nonetheless does not appear proportionate to the objective importance and the consequences of the judicial proceedings.
With regard to the conduct of the parties, account cannot be taken of the extension of the length of the proceedings owing to legitimate requests or the time necessary to rationalise and ensure the normal conduct of the proceedings given that proceedings are unreasonably long where the applicant cannot be blamed for seeking to prolong the proceedings in his or her own interests (requests for adjournment of hearings, needless objections etc.).
With regard to the conduct of the judicial authorities, special consideration must be given, in the instant case, to the entire length of the proceedings for one level of jurisdiction with a great many adjournments which contributed to prolonging the proceedings beyond a reasonable time by causing long and unjustified interruptions (in terms of the Convention, which obliges member States to organise their judicial system in such a way as to ensure compliance with the obligations set forth in Article 6 § 1).
In calculating compensation regard will be had only to the period beyond the reasonable time (in accordance with section 2(3)(a) of Law no. 89/2001): clearly no complaint can be made in respect of conduct on the part of persons involved in the proceedings that is in accordance with the law (such as adjournments necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings).
However, the delay by the judicial authorities in giving a final decision was not in accordance with the law: there is absolutely no justification for such delay given that effect must be given to the right to bring legal proceedings in defence of one’s own interests (Article 24 of the Constitution) by a decision rendered within a reasonable time in order to ensure that justice is done in compliance with the procedural guarantees established by the legislature; while having regard to the “chronic” shortage of staff, the delay in the work and the attempt to find a new balance after the latest judicial and procedural reforms.
Regarding the calculation of just satisfaction, the pecuniary damage flowing directly from the delay in giving the final decision cannot be considered to have been made out: the damage cannot be objectively proved either by the supposed intention of the applicant to sell the property or by the costs and expenses, which, apart from the fact that they were not referred to by the applicant, have in any event been dealt with by the decision.
With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the criterion to be applied is the one indicated under Art. 1226 of the Civil Code, reiterated in Art. 2056, to which s. 2(3) of Law no. 89/2001 refers.
The compensation is quantified at 5,000 euros (inclusive of interest and monetary depreciation – without going into details – see Cass 2910/1995, to which will be added interest accrued only in respect of the time that elapses between the decision and payment), on account of the special nature of the case, the subject of the dispute and the period beyond the reasonable time, the number of levels of jurisdiction and the special subjective situation: on account of the length of the proceedings the applicant has undoubtedly suffered anxiety and distress as a result of waiting for the final decision and uncertainty as to the outcome of the proceedings.”
The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for pecuniary damages on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate it, awarded her EUR 5,000 on an equitable basis in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 860 for costs and expenses. The decision was served on the applicant on 13 March 2002. 19.  The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation against that decision on 21 May 2002 on the ground that the amount awarded her by the Court of Appeal was inadequate. 20.  However, in a judgment of 12 November 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 3 January 2003, the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that it had been lodged out of time. The authorities paid the amounts due on 23 December 2003. 21.  In a letter of 25 August 2003 the applicant informed the Court of the outcome of the domestic proceedings and asked it to resume its examination of her application.