CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 6 juin 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .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 } .sF180E162 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; line-height:115% } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)121 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Eight cases against Italy   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 June 2019 at the 1348 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 36168/09 PIAZZI 02/11/2010 02/02/2011 25704/11 LOMBARDO 29/01/2013 29/04/2013 51930/10 NICOLÒ SANTILLI 17/12/2013 17/03/2014 107/10 MANUELLO ET NEVI 20/01/2015 20/04/2015 35532/12 BONDAVALLI 17/11/2015 17/02/2016 68884/13 CINCIMINO 28/04/2016 28/07/2016 43299/12 GIORGIONI 15/09/2016 15/12/2016 64297/12 D’ALCONZO 23/02/2017 23/05/2017   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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations of Article 8 of the Convention established on account of the failure of juvenile courts and social services to make sufficient and adequate efforts to ensure that the applicants can exercise their visiting rights to their children or grandchildren or on account of the excessive length of judicial proceedings, including criminal, which limited these rights;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded 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 invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2019)402 ) ;   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved in these cases, given that contacts between certain applicants and their children have been re-established, that the situation of other applicants has been reassessed by the national courts in the light of the Court’s judgments or that the children of some applicants have meanwhile reached the age of majority;   Noting further that in the D’Alconzo case no individual measure was required other than the payment of just satisfaction, since the violation of Article 8 found by the Court resulted from the negative impact of the unreasonable delays occurred during criminal proceedings against the applicant on his right to respect for his family life and that these proceedings had already been completed on the date of the Court’s judgment;   Noting also the extensive awareness-raising measures adopted by the Italian authorities in response to the Court’s judgments, including their inclusion in the programmes of initial and continuous trainings of judges;   Underlying that the issue of the general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in these cases continues to be examined in the framework of the Strumia case (No. 53377/13) and that the closure of these cases in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required;   Noting also that the issue of the excessive length of criminal proceedings continues to be examined in the framework of the Ledonne group of cases (No. 35742/97);   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.”