CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 13 septembre 1996

.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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }    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 on 18 October 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the applications lodged respectively on 30 November 1989, 4 December 1989, 2 March 1992 and 18 March 1993 by Mr Mohamed Nabil Al Maradni, Mr Renato Gamba, Mr Massimo Pugliese and Mr Michele Jasparro against Italy (Applications Nos. 16387/90, 16388/90, 19999/92 and 22102/93);     Whereas on 28 November 1995 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the case has not been referred to the European Court of Human Rights, either by the Commission or by a state entitled to do so under Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention, within the time-limit of three months from the transmission of the report to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers; considering, however, that within this time-limit, two of the applicants, Mr Mohamed Nabil Al Maradni and Mr Renato Gamba, seized the Court in accordance with Protocol No. 9 (P9) but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 24 May 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called upon to take a decision in accordance with Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention and with Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention as amended by Article 5 of Protocol No. 9 (P9-5) for those states having ratified the latter;     Whereas in their application, declared admissible by the Commission on 6 April 1995 (final decision as to the admissibility), the applicants complained of the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings;     Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;     Whereas, at the 571st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 4 September 1996, 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, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), 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 (art. 32) of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.