CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 octobre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Resolution ResDH(2000)114 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 29 February 2000 in the case of Aggiato against Italy   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 October 2000 at the 721st 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 final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Aggiato case delivered on 29 February 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers on the same date under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 36822/97) against Italy, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23 June 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Francesco Aggiato, 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 29 February 2000 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 is notified, the sum of 11 000 000 Italian lire in respect of non-pecuniary damage;   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 former 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 1 June 2000, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicant the sum 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 former 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.