CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 juin 1994

.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 case of Brincat against Italy delivered on 26 November 1992 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 8 January 1988 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Joseph Brincat, a Maltese national, who complained that after being arrested and kept in detention, he had not been brought "promptly" before a "judge" or "other officer" authorised by law to exercise judicial power;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 12 July 1991;        Whereas in its judgment of 26 November 1992 the Court unanimously:        - held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention;        - held that the Respondent State is to pay to the applicant, within three months, 1 000 Maltese pounds for non-pecuniary damage, and 821,43 Maltese pounds and 400 pounds sterling for costs and expenses;        - dismissed 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 26 November 1992, 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 summary in the appendix to this resolution;        Having satisfied itself that on 14 May 1993, the Government of Italy has paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 26 November 1992,        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 (94) 46           Information provided by the Government of Italy           during the examination of the Brincat case                  by the Committee of Ministers        Already, as a result of Act No. 330 of 5 August 1988, which anticipated the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, all measures restricting personal liberty had henceforth to be taken by the investigating judge upon receipt of a reasoned request from the public prosecutor or the judge of first instance.   The new Code of Criminal Procedure, which entered into force on 24 October 1989, has granted this power to the new judge of the preliminary investigation.        The latter is not, according to the new Code, identical to the old investigating judge.   He is not involved in the investigation of criminal cases and does not take any investigative measures, but controls the lawfulness of the measures taken by the public prosecutors.   Furthermore, he has exclusive competence to order, at the request of the public prosecutor, measures interfering with constitutional rights and freedoms, such as measures restricting personal liberty, telephone tappings and seizures.        The decisions of the judge of the preliminary investigation in matters related to deprivation of liberty may be appealed, on points of law, to the Court of Cassation, and, as to the merits, to the criminal court.        The government is of the opinion that these measures ensure that the Italian regulations and practice in matters of detention on remand comply with the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), as interpreted by the Court.