CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 22 juillet 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE32676A4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Resolution ResDH(2002)92 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Friendly settlements) of 1 March 2001, 8 March 2001, 29 March 2001, 5 April 2001, 12 April 2001, 19 April 2001 and 31 May 2001 in 19 cases against Italy (see appendix) relating to the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 July 2002 at the 803rd 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 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the 19 cases listed in the Appendix to this Resolution, which were delivered at various dates between 1 March 2001 and 31 May 2001 and transmitted at the same dates to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that these cases originated in applications (see Appendix) against Italy, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights between 27 March 1995 and 24 September 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by 22 Italian nationals, and that the Court, seized of the cases under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicants’ complaints under Article 1, Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, concerning their prolonged inability to recover possession of their apartments, through lack of police assistance in enforcing judicial eviction orders against the tenants ;   Whereas in the judgments concerning these cases the Court, after having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike these cases out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the cases before the Grand Chamber;   Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlements it was agreed that the Italian Government would pay the applicants certain sums (see appendix), immediately after the notification of the judgments;   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 Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measures were required in the present cases to conform to the Court’s judgment;   Recalling that, as regards the applicants’ complaints declared admissible in these cases, the Committee of Ministers is at present supervising the execution of certain judgments of the Court (among which the judgment in the Immobiliare Saffi case of 28 July 1999) and decisions of Committee of Ministers under former Article 32 of the Convention, finding notably a violation of Article 1, Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the prolonged failure to enforce judicial eviction orders;   Whereas, in this connection, the Italian authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that they were envisaging new general measures (in addition to the adoption, in December 1998, of the law No. 431/98 “Regulations concerning the renting and the repossession of housing”, which sets inter alia the conditions, modalities and deadlines for the implementation of eviction proceedings) in order to put to an end the serious problem of non-enforcement of judicial eviction orders, so as to prevent new violations similar to those found in the above-mentioned cases,   Declares, on the basis of the information supplied by the Government of Italy, that the Committee of Ministers has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in the friendly settlements reached in these cases.   Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2002)92   Details of just satisfaction awarded to the applicants     Date of judgement Case Application Pecuniary and Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total Date of Payment 01/03/2001 B. 32465/96     15 000 000 ITL 10/04/2001 31/05/2001 Castelli 30920/96     35 000 000 ITL 31/07/2001 01/03/2001 Castiglioni 30877/93     20 000 000 ITL 23/05/2001 31/05/2001 Colangelo 29671/96 24 215 285 ITL 5 000 000 ITL 29 215 285 ITL 31/07/2001 19/04/2001 D.L. & M.A. 31926/96     17 500 000 ITL to Mrs D.L. 17 500 000 ITL to Mr M.A. 30/05/2001 05/04/2001 De Leonardis 33529/96     105 000 000 ITL 23/05/2001 19/04/2001 Gefima Immobiliare 33943/96     80 000 000 ITL 14/06/2001 29/03/2001 Germano 31379/96     40 000 000 ITL 19/06/2001 01/03/2001 Gimigliano 30918/96     26 000 000 ITL 29/05/2001 08/03/2001 Guglielmi 32659/96     73 000 000 ITL 28/05/2001 01/03/2001 I . Fr. 31930/96     33 000 000 ITL 05/04/2001 19/04/2001 L.M.G. 32655/96 26 000 000 ITL 4 000 000 ITL 30 000 000 ITL 30/05/2001 01/03/2001 Paris 33602/96     60 000 000 ITL 23/05/2001 05/04/2001 Pavese 32388/96     70 000 000 ITL 28/05/2001 01/03/2001 R.M. V 32403/96     20 000 000 ITL 28/05/2001 12/04/2001 S.A. & D.D.L. 30973/96     7 000 000 ITL to Mrs S.A. 7 000 000 ITL to Mr D.D.L. 13/06/2001 01/03/2001 Sborchia & Tognarini 33116/96     20 000 000 ITL to both applicants 23/05/2001 19/04/2001 Tarducci 31460/96     50 000 000 ITL 30/05/2001 05/04/2001 Tieghi 33253/96 30 429 000 ITL 7 429 000 ITL 37 429 000 ITL 22/06/2001