CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 juillet 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9BD1BAAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:22pt; text-align:center } .sFCACDBC6 { margin-top:22pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40283553 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center } .s55B2EA68 { margin-top:8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; line-height:150% } .sD622F424 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5BB93D78 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s810C3978 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     INTERIM resolution DH   (99) 493 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 39156/98 FERRAZZINI AGAINST ITALY (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 July 1999 at the 677th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   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 on 30 November 1998 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 21   April 1997 by an Italian national, Mr   Giorgio Ferrazzini, against Italy; Whereas on 1 February 1999 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, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention; Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 15 September 1998, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain proceedings before the civil courts, as well as of a violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as a result of the length of those proceedings; Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention and that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Whereas at the 677th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 15 July 1999, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case; Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.