CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 décembre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s87F54B8B { height:5.9pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8AF05CF { height:5.95pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)246 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Twenty-eight cases against Italy   Application No. Case Decision of the Committee under former Article 32 Judgment of   Judgment final on 29155/95 ANDREOLETTI DH(97)299 (15/05/1997) - - 37165/97 T.A.M. DH(99)88 (18/01/1999) - - 44457/98 BONELLI - 01/03/2001 01/06/2001 48403/99 MINICI - 23/10/2001 23/01/2002 26046/94 RAFFI DH(96)507 (13/09/1996) - - 26440/95 R.D. DH(96)545 (13/09/1996) - - 26829/95 A.A.Q. DH(96)615 (15/11/1996) - - 27962/95 S.D.P. DH(97)141 (19/03/1997) - - 29040/95 FAIETA DH(98)25 (18/02/1998) - - 29130/95 V.M. DH(97)323 (15/05/1997) - - 29161/95 CAVADINI DH(97)304 (15/05/1997) - - 29653/96 FORESTA DH(97)432 (17/09/1997) - - 32280/96 MINNAI DH(98)35 (18/02/1998) - - 33148/96 SGRÒ DH(98)119 (22/04/1998) - - 33158/96 LAINO - 18/02/1999 18/02/1999 34241/96 MANNI DH(98)244 (10/07/1998) - - 34278/96 PEZZINI DH(98)250 (10/07/1998) - - 34851/97 DI FABIO DH(98)338 (25/09/1998) - - 35921/97 BAZZEA PAOLA DH(99)53 (18/01/1999) - - 37175/97 BOLIGNARI DH(99)136 (19/02/1999) - - 38109/97 BARGAGLI - 09/11/1999 09/11/1999 38485/97 DALLA POZZA DH(99)382 (09/06/1999) - - 44394/98 LIBERATORE - 27/02/2001 27/05/2001 40593/98 TEDESCO DH(99)636 (08/10/1999) - - 45874/99 PITTONI - 07/11/2000 07/02/2001 46513/99 ROTIROTI - 21/11/2000 21/02/2001 47786/99 G.V. - 01/03/2001 21/06/2001 52969/99 ALMANIO ANTONIO ROMANO - 12/02/2002 12/05/2002   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 December 2015 at the 1243rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 and those of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”),   Having regard to its decisions adopted under former Article 32 of the Convention and to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases, as well as the violations established of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of divorce and legal separation proceedings;   Recalling the obligation of the respondent State to abide by the decisions adopted under former Article 32 of the Convention as well as its obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party; recalling also that these obligations entail, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Committee or by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having noted that the just satisfaction, where awarded, has been paid by the government of the respondent State and that the government reported to the relevant domestic courts, with a view to speeding them up, the proceedings which were still pending at the time the Committee adopted its decisions under former Article 32 or the judgments of the European Court became final;   Having noted further the promising results obtained by the First Instance Courts and the Courts of Appeal as regards the average length of divorce and legal separation proceedings between 2011 and 2013;   Noting that these results will be consolidated through the recent measures adopted and those still envisaged by the Italian authorities in this area, in particular the introduction in 2014 of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in respect of such cases, the envisaged setting-up of specialised sections for family cases within the First Instance Courts and the majority of the Courts of Appeal and the simplification of the procedure before these sections;   Noting with satisfaction the authorities’ commitment to continue their efforts to put an end to the more general problem of excessive length of proceedings before civil courts in the context of the cases of the Ceteroni group which remain under the Committee’s supervision;   Recalling also that the Committee continues to examine the outstanding issues concerning the compensatory remedy introduced with regard to the excessive length of judicial proceedings by the Pinto Act in 2001, within the framework of the Giuseppe Mostacciuolo group and the Gaglione and Others case;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 and under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in the cases listed above and concerning the length of divorce and legal separation proceedings,   DECIDES to close their examination.