12.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Pesco Sannita (Benevento). 13.  On 17 January 1992 the applicant brought proceedings in the Benevento Magistrate's Court, sitting as an employment tribunal, seeking acknowledgement of her right to be reregistered on the lists of farmers and of her status in that capacity. That status had been contested by the Farmers' Social Insurance Fund (Servizio Contributi Agricoli Unificati – “the SCAU”). Her entitlement to a maternity allowance depended on the type of occupational status she had. 14.  On 22 February 1992 the Magistrate's Court set the case down for the first hearing on 14 March 1994. On that day it also requested documents relating to the records drawn up by the labour inspector and ordered them to be filed at a hearing on 8 November 1995. On that date, at the request of counsel for the defendant, the Magistrate's Court declared the proceedings interrupted on the ground that the SCAU had been abolished. 15.  On 24 November 1995 the applicant lodged an application with the court registry for the proceedings to be resumed against the social-security department (Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza Sociale). On 25 January 1996 the Magistrate's Court set the case down for hearing on 21 October 1997. However, that hearing was adjourned by the court of its own motion to 4 March 1999. The next three hearings, held between 8 April 1999 and 18 September 2000, were devoted to hearing evidence from witnesses. One of those hearings was adjourned at the parties' request. On 13 November 2000 the parties made their submissions. 16.  In a judgment of the same date, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 21 November 2000, the Magistrate's Court dismissed the claim because the applicant had failed to show that a relationship of subordination had existed at her work. 17.  On 24 April 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Naples Court of Appeal. On 11 February 2001 the president set the appeal down for hearing on 26 January 2004. On that day the Court of Appeal reserved judgment. In a judgment of the same date, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 15 March 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 18.  On 3 October 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Rome 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. She asked the court to rule 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, plus an unquantified amount for costs and expenses. 19.  In a decision of 28 February 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 30 April 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the proceedings had been excessively long. It held as follows:
“...The Convention principle that everyone's case must be examined within a reasonable time has been breached, and the applicant has sustained non-pecuniary damage for the excessive length of the proceedings involving interests of considerable importance. In truth, the proceedings ... should not have lasted more than five years for two levels of jurisdiction. Non-pecuniary damage (distress on account of the prolongment of proceedings relating to an important situation in the applicant's life) must be deemed to exist in relation to the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention – a violation which objectively exists on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
Given the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties has not caused any delays. Nor has the conduct of the court and the other authorities involved in disposing of the proceedings caused the excessive delay. In truth, the length of the adjournments and thus the delay must be considered to be due to structural reasons.
The damage has to be determined on the basis of Article 2056 of the Civil Code in accordance with the criteria established in Articles 1223, 1226 and 1227-I of the Civil Code and only the damage relating to the period beyond the reasonable time must be taken into consideration under section 3 of the Pinto Act.
In respect of non-pecuniary damage (moral distress on account of the length of the proceedings beyond the reasonable time, as above) an amount of 500 euros should be paid for each of the two years exceeding a reasonable time, plus statutory interest accruing from the day on which the reasonable time was exceeded, which was at the end of 1997 (the usual scale relating to just satisfaction has been redefined in relation to the negative outcome of the proceedings at first instance, which has an effect on the expectations of justice and therefore on the stress caused by the delay). ...”
The Court of Appeal awarded the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR), on an equitable basis, in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 710 for costs and expenses. That decision became final by 15 June 2003 at the latest and was executed by the authorities on an unspecified date between 23 March 2004 and 12 July 2004. 20.  In a letter of 7 January 2003 the applicant informed the Court of the outcome of the domestic proceedings and asked it to resume its examination of her application.
In the same letter the applicant also informed the Court that she did not intend to appeal to the Court of Cassation because an appeal to that court could only be on points of law.