CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 9 juin 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 24 June 1986 by Mr R.C. against Italy (Application No. 12953/87);        Whereas on 3 December 1992 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;        Whereas in his application the applicant complained in particular of not having been able to defend himself against the criminal charges brought against him and of not having received a fair trial in the criminal proceedings in which he was convicted in absentia;        Whereas the Commission declared the application in part admissible on 31 March 1992 and in its report adopted on 19 October 1992 expressed unanimously the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3.c (art. 6-1, art 6-3-c) combined, of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 491st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 1 April 1993, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3.c (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c) combined, of the Convention;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 11 March 1994;        Whereas at the 512nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, held on 4 May 1994, the Committee of Ministers did not find it necessary to award any just satisfaction to the applicant as the latter had not submitted any request to this effect;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of Italy to inform it of the measures taken following its decision of 1 April 1993, having regard to Italy's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide by it,        Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of Italy, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;        Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.                  Appendix to Resolution DH (94) 42          Information provided by the Government of Italy    during the examination of the case of R.C. against Italy                  by the Committee of Ministers        Article 183 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as modified by Section 1 of Law No. 22 of 23 January 1989, has reformed the Italian regulations in respect of restitution of time (restituzione nel termine) and anticipated the regulations laid down in Article 175 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in such a manner as to align these regulations with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights as developed by the European Court of Human Rights. Article 183 bis, accordingly, lays down in its second paragraph that, apart from cases involving exceptional circumstances or force majeure, restitution of time in order to appeal against an in absentia judgment may also be requested when the accused can produce evidence that he did not have effective knowledge of the judgment in question.   However, this right cannot be exercised when the defence counsel has already submitted an appeal or when it is his fault that the accused has not been able to gain knowledge of the judgment or - when the in absentia judgment is notified in the forms prescribed for accused persons who are untraceable (irreperibili) - when the accused has voluntarily put himself in such a position as not to be able to be notified of the proceedings.        Considering the aim of the new regulations and the increased willingness demonstrated by the Italian courts to consider the requirements of the Convention (see, inter alia, the judgment of the Court of Cassation, First Criminal Section, of 12 May 1993 in the Medrano case), the Italian Government is of the opinion that the Italian courts will not fail to respect the principles at the basis of the Committee of Ministers' decision in the present case in their application of the new regulations.