Skip to content

Case law

What the European Court of Human Rights has already said about public debts that go unpaid.

Three principles

A final judgment must be complied with. And if the debtor is public, the State is liable.

  1. Enforcement is part of the trial.

    The right to a court would be illusory if a final judgment could be left unenforced.

    Hornsby v. Greece, 1997 · Art. 6 § 1

  2. Neither lack of funds nor the debtor’s insolvency excuses non-payment.

    A debt recognised by a judgment is a possession protected by the Convention.

    Burdov v. Russia, 2002 · De Luca v. Italy, 2013

  3. The State answers for the entities it controls.

    Municipalities, consortia and publicly controlled companies: their recognised debts engage the State.

    Campoloro v. France, 2006 · Ališić [GC], 2014

Leading judgments

The doctrine, from 1997 to today.

The judgments that set the principles we rely on in every application. Each one links to its full text in HUDOC, the Court’s official database.

Leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on the enforcement of judgments against public bodies
YearCaseApplication no.What it holdsHUDOC
1997
Hornsby v. GreeceChamber
Application no. 18357/91Enforcing a judgment is part of the trial: the administration cannot refuse to comply with it.
2002
Burdov v. RussiaChamber
Application no. 59498/00A lack of public funds does not excuse non-payment of a debt recognised by a judgment.
2004
Mykhaylenky and Others v. UkraineChamber
Application no. 35091/02The State answers for the debts of a public company with no real independence.
2006
Cocchiarella v. ItalyGrand Chamber
Application no. 64886/01A domestic remedy is only effective if the compensation is adequate and paid on time.
2006
Campoloro v. FranceChamber
Application no. 57516/00If a municipality does not pay a final award, the State must ensure payment.
2008
R. Kačapor and Others v. SerbiaChamber
Application no. 2269/06The same approach for publicly or socially owned companies controlled by the State.
2009
Burdov v. Russia (No. 2)Chamber · Pilot
Application no. 33509/04Systemic non-payment of judgments against the State calls for a structural remedy.
2010
Gaglione and Others v. ItalyChamber
Application no. 45867/07Paying the delay compensation itself late breaches the Convention again.
2013
De Luca v. ItalyChamber
Application no. 43870/04A municipality’s insolvency (dissesto) justifies neither non-payment nor blocking enforcement.
2013
Pennino v. ItalyChamber
Application no. 43892/04Same approach as De Luca, delivered on the same day.
2014
Ališić and Others [GC]Grand Chamber
Application no. 60642/08The State answers for the debts of entities under its control, even where they have separate legal personality.
The Italian line · 2025–2026

Insolvent municipalities, consortia in liquidation, public companies.

Over the last two years Strasbourg has found against Italy again and again for the unpaid debts of its public bodies. Neither insolvency, nor liquidation, nor immunity from seizure has served as an excuse.

Chamber · First SectionRequest for referral to the Grand Chamber pending

Application no. 37249/24· Art. 6 § 1· Art. 1 P1

Banca Sistema S.p.A. v. Italy · Municipality of Cosenza

Neither the municipality’s insolvency nor the distribution among creditors justifies the delay: if the municipality does not pay, the State pays.

A Chamber judgment that consolidates the Committees’ line of cases. It adds that asking to be admitted to the liquidator’s list of creditors does not amount to accepting the delay.

Read on HUDOC (opens in a new tab)
  1. Banca Sistema v. Italy (Catania)CommitteeApplication no.31795/23
    Municipality in dissestoInsolvency and the statutory bar on enforcement do not excuse non-payment.
  2. Pronto Interventi Sida and Others v. ItalyCommitteeApplication no.31429/23
    Waste consortiaImmunity of funds from seizure cannot leave the creditor without enforcement.
  3. Banca Sistema v. Italy (Noto and Others)CommitteeApplication no.41796/23
    Municipalities in dissestoBlocking enforcement against the insolvent municipality restricts access to a court.
  4. Romano and Others v. ItalyCommitteeApplication no.25191/22
    Municipalities in predissestoSuspending enforcement during a recovery plan of uncertain length breaches the Convention.
  5. Banca Sistema v. Italy (Terni)CommitteeApplication no.184/24
    Municipality in dissestoEven if payment is eventually made, the delay is already a violation.
  6. Esposito and Others v. ItalyCommitteeApplication no.11032/24
    7 municipalitiesIn dissesto or predissesto, the creditor cannot be left without a means of enforcement.
  7. Montecuollo and Others v. ItalyCommitteeApplication no.38566/23
    Consortia in liquidationThe De Luca doctrine extends to public consortia in liquidation.
  8. Servizi Ecologici v. ItalyCommitteeApplication no.12341/23
    Public companiesThe State answers for a company that is formally private but publicly controlled and owned.
Spain and Portugal

The same Convention, the same Court.

The principles Strasbourg applies hold equally for the 46 States of the Council of Europe. In Spain, the closest precedent is Flores Quirós v. Spain (2016), on the non-enforcement of a judgment against a public body. In Portugal, the Court counts the enforcement phase within the reasonable length of the proceedings (Estima Jorge v. Portugal, 1998).

There is not yet a line of case law of its own on debts left unpaid by the Spanish or Portuguese administration. That is exactly the space we work in.