CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 29 mai 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7F95B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s780D430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Resolution DH (2000) 63 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 19 October 1999 in the case of Carrozza against Italy   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 May 2000 at the 709th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Carrozza case delivered on 19 October 1999 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 43598/98) against Italy, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 September 1998 under previous Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Mario Carrozza, an Italian national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating to the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings; Whereas in its judgment of 19 October 1999 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the Government of the respondent State and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties' undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber; Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Italy would pay the applicant, as soon as the judgment was notified, a total sum of 19 000   000 Italian lire, namely 14 000   000 Italian lire in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and 5 000   000 Italian lire in respect of costs and expenses; Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of previous Article 54 which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases transmitted to it under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention; Having satisfied itself that on 7 February 2000, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the friendly settlement; Recalling that, as regards the applicant's complaint declared admissible in this case, the Committee of Ministers is at present supervising the execution of several judgments of the Court and of a considerable number of Committee of Ministers' decisions under previous Article   32 of the Convention, finding a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of proceedings before the Italian criminal courts; Whereas, in this connection, the Italian authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that they were drafting and adopting new general measures in order to put an end to the serious problem of excessive length of proceedings, so as to prevent new violations similar to those already found in the above-mentioned cases, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Italy, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.