CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)53 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Pezone against Italy   (Application No. 42098/98, judgment of 18 December 2003, final on 18 March 2004)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the applicant's unlawful detention for 15 months and 14 days (from 11 December 1992 to 25 March 1994) on account of an error in the calculation of his sentence (violation of Article 5, paragraph 1), and the fact that he could not obtain compensation for this unlawful detention (violation of Article 5, paragraph 5) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Italy's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Havinc examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix),   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.                                                                                                   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)53   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Pezone against Italy     Introductory case summary   The case concerned the applicant's unlawful detention for 15 months and 14 days, from 11 December 1992 to 25 March 1994, due to an error in the calculation of his sentence, the previous period of detention on remand not having been deducted from the sentence passed (violation of Article 5, paragraph 1).   The case also concerned the fact that the applicant could not obtain compensation for this unlawful detention. The European Court of Human Rights noted that the legislation in force at the material time did not provide such compensation; that the applicant's claim for damages against the judicial authorities had been unsuccessful and that Italian courts had constantly denied any direct effect to Article 5, paragraph 5 of the Convention (violation of Article 5, paragraph 5).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 35   000 € 8   000 € 43   000 € Paid between 19/04/2004 and 27/05/2004   b) Individual measures   The consequences of the violation sustained by the applicant because of his unlawful detention and lack of compensation have been considered and given redress by the European Court of Human Rights in the context of the award of just satisfaction. The adoption of further specific individual measure was, thus, not necessary.     II.   General measures   In the government's opinion, the unlawfulness of the applicant's detention, which brought about the violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, arose from an isolated error of computation committed by the authorities. They were accordingly informed of the judgment of the European Court in this case in order to prevent as far as possible the recurrence of a similar violation.   As to the violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, the government recalls that since 1996 compensation has been possible in cases similar to the Pezone case. A decision of the Italian Constitutional Court (judgment no. 310/96) of 25/07/96 declared Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutional insofar as it did not provide a right to compensation in the event of unwarranted detention resulting from an error of computation.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Italian government takes the view that the applicant has received full satisfaction and that there is no longer a risk of fresh violations resembling those found in this case. Italy has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies