12.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Benevento. 13.  On 5 May 1987 Mr F. asked the Benevento District Court to order the applicant to pay him 73,934,495 Italian lire (38,183.98 euros (EUR)) for professional services. On 11 May 1987 the President of the Benevento District Court granted the application. The order was served on the applicant on 20 May 1987. 14.  On 8 June 1987 the applicant challenged the order in the Benevento District Court. Preparation of the case for trial began on 24 September 1987. Of the twenty-nine hearings listed between 26 November 1987 and 16 October 1998 seven were adjourned by the court of its own motion, ten were devoted to organising expert evidence and supplementary findings and two were adjourned at the parties’ request. 15.  On 16 April 1999 the case was referred to the bench of judges dealing with the oldest cases (sezioni stralcio). Of the four hearings listed between 22 September 1999 and 8 February 2002 one was adjourned by the court of its own motion and one because the parties had not appeared. On 2 May 2003 the case was struck out of the list of cases because the parties had not appeared. 16.  On 10 January 2002 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. The applicant 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 pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicant claimed EUR 14,460.94 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. He sought the reimbursement of his legal costs, including those incurred before the European Court of Human Rights, but did not quantify or give particulars of them. 17.  In a decision of 21 June 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 2 October 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. It held as follows:
“ ... The proceedings have lasted approximately 15 years without being disposed of.
Their length is clearly well over the reasonable time required by Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention.
On the basis of the time periods considered reasonable in a series of judgments of the Strasbourg Court, this type of proceedings should have ended within three years at the most since they were normal proceedings on the merits to be prepared and dealt with in accordance with the ordinary procedure.
Accordingly, in respect of the surplus period of approximately 12 years the delay has to be regarded as unjustified.
That delay certainly cannot be attributed to culpable conduct on the part of the applicant, who did not make any unsubstantiated requests for an adjournment or applications for investigative measures on false pretexts since he merely put up with the numerous adjournments ordered by the court of its own motion and the slowness in preparing the case without being able to intervene to expedite the proceedings, as was in his interests, and have set aside an order to pay a substantial sum which he considered unfair.
Nor is the delay attributable to the complexity of the case since, on the contrary, it was an ordinary dispute which could easily have been disposed of in less time by examining a number of documents and the expert report that was drawn up, as the technical investigation did not require a lot of work.
Nor have the courts been negligent, since the overlong parts of the proceedings have to be attributed to the excessive caseload and the structural flaws for which the Benevento judicial departments are notorious.
Accordingly, responsibility for the delay can only be attributed to the Italian State, which, despite its obligation after signing and ratifying the European Convention of Human Rights to equip itself with a judicial system capable of dealing with its citizens’ legal claims, has failed to expedite proceedings because of persistent structural flaws and the growing increase in the caseload, despite a number of changes to the rules and a reinforcement of the court structures.
The applicant shall therefore be awarded just satisfaction.
No award shall be made for pecuniary damage because the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim.
He is, however, entitled to non-pecuniary damages since it cannot be excluded that he has suffered as a result of the consequent long and frustrating wait for a judgment which has still not been delivered after years of preparation of the case and which should solve a matter of major economic importance for him.
Having regard to the length of the delay, the interests at stake and the uncertain outcome of the dispute, we consider it equitable to make an award of 2,000 euros...”
The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for pecuniary damages on the ground that the applicant had not provided any proof, awarded him EUR 2,000 on an equitable basis in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, EUR 700 for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights and EUR 900 for the costs and expenses incurred in the Pinto proceedings. 18.  In a letter of 21 January 2003 the applicant informed the Court of the outcome of the domestic proceedings and asked it to resume its examination of his application. 19.  The applicant has not indicated that he appealed to the Court of Cassation. 20.  The Court of Appeal’s decision was served on the authorities on 23 January 2003 and became final on 24 March 2003. The applicant served the authorities with notice to comply on 15 October 2003. On 29 October 2003 the applicant lodged an application for a garnishee order with the Rome judge responsible for enforcement proceedings and a hearing was held on 28 March 2004. After obtaining a garnishee order on 27 May 2004, the sums were paid on an unspecified date after the order had been served.