CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 12 octobre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } Resolution ResDH(2005)86 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 27 February 2001 (final on 27 May 2001) in the case of Lucà against Italy   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 October 2005 at the 940th 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Lucà case delivered on 27   February   2001 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 33354/96) against Italy, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 January 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr   Nicola   Lucà, an Italian national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No.   11, declared admissible the complaint concerning the unfairness of the criminal proceedings which had resulted in the applicant's conviction in 1994 to eight years and four month's imprisonment, given in particular that the conviction was based exclusively on pre-trial statements made by a co-accused person whom the applicant was not allowed to cross-examine;   Whereas in its judgment of 27 February 2001 the Court:   -   held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 d), of the Convention;   -   held, by six votes to one, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 15   000   000 Italian lire in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 3   000   000 Italian lire in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 3.5% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 27 February 2001, having regard to Italy's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Having satisfied itself that on 14 September 2001, after the expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 27 February 2001, and that the default interest due was paid on 10 December 2003;   Noting, as regards individual measures, that Italian law does now allow the reopening or the reexamination of domestic judicial proceedings following the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights;   Considering, that this situation does not dispense the Committee from examining, from the point of view of the Convention, whether appropriate measures to ensure, as far as possible, restitutio in integrum would be nevertheless necessary (see mutatis mutandis , ResDH(2004)88 in the case of I.J.L. and others against the United Kingdom);   Considering however that the adoption of individual measures is not called for in this case taking account of its specific circumstances and, in particular, of the applicant's release from detention and of the absence of any claim on his part for reopening of the impugned domestic proceedings (cf. Recommendation R   (2000)   2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the abovementioned Resolution ResDH(2004)88);   Concluding accordingly that Italy was not in the present case called upon, under Article 46 of the Convention, to adopt any individual measure over and above the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, in order to erase the consequences for the applicant of the violations found;   Noting nevertheless with interest the ongoing reflection regarding the necessity of introducing into Italian law a clear possibility to reopen proceedings contrary to the Convention and the importance of ensuring that the legislative work in this respect is rapidly completed (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)85 in the case Dorigo against Italy) ;   Whereas, as regards the general measures, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case, in particular through constitutional and legislative amendments to the relevant provisions between 1999 and 2001 (see for details Resolution ResDH(2005)28 adopted in the case of Craxi II against Italy), and indicated that the Court's judgment had been published in Revue internationale des droits de l'homme , vol. 2, May-August 2001 and in Il Sole 24Ore – Guida al Diritto , No. 14 of 14 April 2001 and sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Declares, after having examined 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.