CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 décembre 1993

.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 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brozicek case delivered on 19 December 1989 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against Italy lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 May 1984 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Georg Brozicek, a German national who complained that he had not been informed, in a language which he understood, of the nature and the cause of the criminal charges brought against him and that, since he had been tried in absentia without having any opportunity to defend himself, he had not had a fair trial;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 11 May 1988;        Whereas in its judgment of 19 December 1989 the Court:        - dismissed by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-      exhaustion of domestic remedies as regards the possibility      of a "late appeal";        - dismissed unanimously the remainder of the said objection;        - held by fifteen votes to five that there had been a      violation of paragraphs 3.a and 1 of Article 6 (art. 6-3-a,      art. 6-1) of the Convention;        - held unanimously, as regards the non-pecuniary damage      sustained by the applicant, that the judgment constituted      in itself adequate just satisfaction for the purposes of      Article 50 (art. 50);        - held unanimously that the respondent State was to pay to      the applicant in respect of costs and expenses 4 027,27      Deutschmarks and 1 900 Swiss francs;        - dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just      satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of Italy to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 19 December 1989, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Italy gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Having satisfied itself that the Government of Italy has paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 19 December 1989,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Italy, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                  Appendix to Resolution DH (93) 63          Information provided by the Government of Italy           during the examination of the Brozicek case                  by the Committee of Ministers        The new Code of Criminal Procedure, which entered into force on 24 October 1989, stipulates in Article 169, paragraph 3, that the indictment shall be drafted in the language of the accused if it does not appear from the file that the accused knows Italian.        Article 183bis 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 183bis, accordingly, lays down in its second paragraph that restitution of time in order to appeal against an in absentia judgment may be requested, not only in cases involving exceptional circumstances or force majeure, but also 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 - following notification of the in absentia judgment according to the procedure 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 and wording of the new regulations cited above and the increased willingness demonstrated by the Italian courts to take into account 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 laid down in the Brozicek judgment.