CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 juin 2008

.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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .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(2008)48 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights N.F. against Italy   (Application No. 37119/97, judgment of 2 August 2001, final on 12 December 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 unlawful interference with the freedom of association of a judge, who was subjected to a disciplinary sanction on account of his membership of the freemasons, on legal grounds which were not sufficiently clear, specific, or predictable (violation of Article 11) (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), 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(2008)48   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of N.F. against Italy     Introductory case summary   This case concerns an unlawful interference with the freedom of association of the applicant, who is a judge. In 1994 the Supreme Judicial Board (CSM) imposed disciplinary sanctions (i.e. a warning) on the applicant on account of his membership of the freemasons from March 1991 to November 1992. The European Court considered that the legal basis of the sanction, i.e. Article 18 of Royal Decree No. 511 of 31/05/1946 combined with a 1990 directive of the CSM, was not sufficiently clear, specific, or predictable (violations of Article 11).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 20   000   000 ITL 27   312   012 ITL 47   312   012 ITL Paid on 13/03/2002   b) Individual measures   In 2003, the Supreme Judicial Board, noting that Italian law did not allow reopening or re ‑ examination of disciplinary proceedings, decided to add the European Court's judgment to the applicant's professional file. Concerning other possible negative consequences of the finding of violation of the European Convention on the applicant's career, it appears that the refusal to grant him promotion in 2000 was declared void by the Regional Administrative court. Following this decision, the Supreme Judicial Board approved the advancement of the applicant's career as from October 2000, based on a detailed evaluation of the applicant's professional competencies. Consequently, no further individual measure is required.     II.   General measures   New guidance was adopted in 1993 which sets out clearly the incompatibility of the exercise of the functions of judge with the membership of the freemasons. The European Court's judgment was brought to the attention of the competent judicial authorities and also published in Italian in the judicial journals Il Foro italiano , No. 11 of 2001 and Il Sole 24 Ore - Guida al Diritto , No. 39 of 13/10/2001 and on Internet ( www.dirittiuomo.it ).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures 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 25 June 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies