In the case of Finanziaria D’Investimento Fininvest S.P.A. and Berlusconi v. Italy the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to a fair hearing / right of access to a court regarding respect for the res judicata principle and the right to a tribunal established by law.

The case concerned civil proceedings brought in the Italian courts by the company CIR S.p.A. against the applicant company, which was chaired by Silvio Berlusconi at the relevant time. The civil action was aimed at securing compensation for damage sustained by CIR as a result of the bribing of a judge who had taken part in handing down a judicial decision (“the 1991 judgment”) in a previous dispute between the two companies.

The Court found that the reconsideration of the solution given in the 1991 judgment – in which the corrupt judge had taken part – during the compensation proceedings brought by the victim of the act of bribery had not been in breach of the res judicata principle, noting that it had been justified by compelling reasons, that it had been in accordance with domestic law and that it had struck a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice. In addition, it considered that domestic courts had not overstepped their jurisdiction ratione materiae in the compensation proceedings.

The Court also found no violation of the protection of property regarding an order to pay compensation in the context of a dispute between private parties. The Court noted that the domestic decisions, which had been based, inter alia, on an expert report, had been duly reasoned and were by no means arbitrary. It observed that the amount of compensation had been determined on the basis of an assessment of the damage sustained by CIR as a result of the unlawful act attributed to the applicant company, finding that its impact on that company’s financial situation was irrelevant.

The Court found a violation of the right to a fair hearing concerning the Court of Cassation’s failure to give reasons for its award of procedural costs. The Court took the view that the Court of Cassation’s judgment was not sufficiently reasoned on that point.

The Court also held that there had been no violation of the presumption of innocence in respect of the applicant Berlusconi. It noted that, while examining the same facts as those at issue in the criminal proceedings that had resulted in a decision to dismiss the charges as time-barred, the domestic courts had been careful to point out on several occasions that their analysis was aimed solely at establishing civil liability. It concluded that the domestic decisions had not imputed criminal liability to the applicant Berlusconi.

• Press release