CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s97201916 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt; font-size:12pt } .s14070A01 { width:31.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; 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)126 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Pellegrini against Italy   (Application No. 30882/96, judgment of 20 July 2001, final on 20 October 2001)     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 “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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial, on account of the failure of the Italian courts to ensure that she had had a fair hearing in ecclesiastical proceedings before issuing their exequatur (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Italy's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having 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 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 by the Court in its judgments, 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   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 871st meeting of the Minister's Deputies (24 February 2004), 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)126   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Pellegrini against Italy     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial on account of the failure of the Italian courts to ensure that the applicant had had a fair hearing in ecclesiastical proceedings before issuing in 1991 the authority to enforce the judgment of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota declaring the nullity of the applicant's marriage ( exequatur ) (violation of article 6 § 1).   In fact, the ecclesiastical proceedings had not respected the adversarial principle, as the applicant:   -                       was not informed in detail about the petition for declaration of nullity filed by her husband; -                       did not have access to the file of the proceedings, including the general prosecutor's comments, the witnesses' statements and the complete text of the judgment; -                       was not assisted by a counsel and was not informed about the possibility to be assisted by a counsel.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 10   000   000 ITL 18   253   940 ITL 28   253   940 ITL Paid on 13/02/2002; default interests due paid on 11/12/2003   b) Individual measures   In consequences of the violation found by the Court, the applicant lost her right to a maintenance allowance, because the marriage was annuled instead of being ended by divorce. Nevertheless, on 19/06/200, she came to an agreement with her former husband and renounced the judicial proceedings claiming her right to a maintenance allowance. The Court dismissed the claim for pecuniary damage insofar as the applicant did not specify whether or not the agreement with her former husband covered the sum claimed to the Court for the time the payment of the allowance was suspended.   II.   General measures   The applicable legislation in Italy explicitly provides, as a condition for giving the exequatur to proceedings declaring the nullity of marriage, the verification that the defence rights of the parties have been recognised in a manner compatible with the fundamental principles of Italian Law (see §§ 31-35 of the judgment). The case-law information on this issue submitted by the Italian authorities indicates that these provisions are normally respected in practice by the competent courts and that, therefore, the violation found in this case has an occasional and isolated character.   In order however to prevent any possible new similar violation from occurring, the judgement was sent out to the Presidents of the Court of Cassation and of the Courts of Appeal, as well as to the Public Prosecutors of these Courts with a circular drawing their attention to the elements raised by the Court. The judgment was furthermore published in Italian and commented in several legal reviews, notably in the “Law Guide” ( Guida al diritto ) supplement to the daily Il Sole 24 Ore , No. 35 of 15/09/2001.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Italy has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies