CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 14 février 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s9BD1BAAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:22pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sEDE76211 { margin-top:8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .sD622F424 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE3A0EFA1 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCCB68666 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } INTERIM resolution DH   (2000) 21 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 31461/96 ZAIA AGAINST ITALY (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2000 at the 695th 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 22 April 1999 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 20 February 1996 by an Italian national, Mr Stefano Zaia, against Italy; Whereas on 16 June 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, as declared admissible by the Commission on 9 September 1998, the applicant complained that the length of certain criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and that his father's telephone had been illegally tapped; 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 of Article 8 of the Convention; Whereas at the 695th 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 14 February 2000, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and of Article 8 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.