CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 avril 2009

.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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; 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 } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)50 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Quadrelli against Italy   (Application No. 28168/95, judgment of 11 January 2000, final on 20 March 2000)     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 in this case, transmitted by the Court once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the unfairness of civil proceedings, the Court of Cassation having dismissed in 1994 the applicant’s appeal without taking into account his pleadings (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken with its 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 885th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (15 June 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(2009)50   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Quadrelli against Italy     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial before the Italian Court of Cassation, which failed to take into account the applicant’s pleadings when declaring his appeal inadmissible in 1994, the government having been unable to prove that the abovementioned pleadings had not been filed (violation of Article 6§1). The civil proceedings at issue related to the applicant’s dismissal from his job in 1980, in Spain, where he had been working for the Italian Chamber of Commerce.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - The judgment constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction. 10   000   000 ITL 10   000   000 ITL Paid on 30/06/2000     b) Individual measures   The applicant, who had been awarded unemployment benefits in the framework of a friendly settlement before the Spanish courts, raised no further issue regarding individual measures before the Committee of Ministers.   Accordingly, the government considers that the present case does not call for the adoption of specific individual measures.     II.   General measures   At the time of the facts at the origin of this case, the registry of the Italian Court of Cassation did not deliver receipts when pleadings were filed: such filing was merely registered in internal records of the registry, and it was not possible to obtain a copy.   This practice was subsequently amended and now all documents filed in the registry of the Court of Cassation are officially registered, which allows for an effective remedy in case the procedural rules are not respected.   Furthermore, in order to inform the competent Italian authorities, an extract from the European Court’s judgment was inserted in the archives of the electronic database of the Italian Court of Cassation.   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 2 April 2009 at the 1051st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies