CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 décembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)202 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Montani against Italy   (Application No. 24950/06, judgment of 19 January 2010, final on 19 April 2010)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the arbitrary monitoring of the prisoner’s correspondence in June 2006, deriving from failure to comply with new legislation (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)202   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Montani against Italy     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the arbitrary monitoring of part of the correspondence of the applicant, a life prisoner, in June 2006 (violation of Article 8). The applicant, subject to the special prison regime provided by Article 41 bis of the Prisons Act applicable to prisoners convicted of offences linked with the Mafia, was subjected to restrictions inter alia with respect to correspondence. Letters sent by the applicant to the Court were in particular subject to arbitrary monitoring. The European Court noted the entry into force of Act No. 95/2004 (adding Article 18 ter to the Law on Prison Administration), modifying the previous legislation and providing a clearer legal framework for the monitoring of correspondence. It also recalled that paragraph 2 of that article excludes from monitoring the detainee’s correspondence, in particular with his lawyer and international bodies competent for human rights issues. However, the Court established that despite the entry into force of Act. No. 95/2004, the correspondence between the applicant and the Court has been monitored (§§ 42 and 43 of the judgment).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   The European Court awarded no just satisfaction.   b) Individual measures   The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages suffered. Furthermore, the Court found no link between the violations and pecuniary damages claimed by the applicant (§57). As regards possible new, similar violations in respect of the applicant, reference should be made to the general measures adopted by the Italian authorities.     II.   General measures   Despite the new legislative framework (introduction in April 2004 of Article 18 ter of the Law on Prison Administration), the fact that censorship took place after April 2004 cast doubt on its proper application. To raise awareness and prevent similar violations, the Ministry of Justice translated the judgment of the European Court in a similar case (Guidi, application No. 28320/02) into Italian and sent it out to the competent courts. Furthermore, the Prison Administration Department sent several circulars to the directors of Italian prisons, recalling the basic rules on monitoring of correspondence and the need to comply with the legal framework provided by Act No. 95/2004. For further details see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)56, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the cases of Guidi, De Pace and Zara against Italy, on 3   June   2010.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure was required in this case, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Italy has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies