CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 26 février 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)58 Human Rights Application No. 38102/97 Talenti against Italy   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 February 2001 at the 741 st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former 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 4 March 1999 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with former Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 5 January 1995 by an American national, Mr Pier Francesco Talenti (who died in 1997, and whose case is being continued by Ms Tatiana Talenti and Mr Stuart White, as executors of his estate), against Italy; Whereas on 6 May 1999 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers; Whereas the case was referred to the Court by the Government of the respondent State on 12 August 1999; Whereas the Court, in its judgment of 27 July 2000, held, unanimously, that it could not deal with the merits of the case as it found that the Government’s application bringing the case before the Court was inadmissible, as it had not been submitted within the period of three months provided for in former Article 32, paragraph 1, and former Article 47 of the Convention: Whereas on 30 November 2000 the Court decided to refuse the request, introduced by the Government on 15 September 2000, to revise and/or rectify the judgment of 27 July 2000; Whereas, as a consequence, the Committee of Ministers is now called upon to take a decision under former Article 32 of the Convention; Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 27 May 1998, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings; Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by twenty-one votes against two, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; Whereas at the 741 st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of former Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 26 February 2001, 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 former Article 32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.