CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 septembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     656   21.9.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASE OF VICTOR EMMANUEL DE SAVOIE v. ITALY – PARTLY ADMISSSIBLE   On 13 September 2001 a Chamber of the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights declared partly admissible the application in the case of Victor Emmanuel de Savoie v. Italy (no. 53360/99).   It also decided to hold a hearing on the merits of the admissible complaints on a date to be fixed subsequently.   Principal facts   The applicant is the son of Umberto II, the last king of Italy. He left Italy in 1946 when his father went into exile following the referendum of 2 June 1946 on the Italian political regime and the proclamation of the Italian Republic. Since the death of Umberto II on 18 March 1983 the applicant has been the head of the House of Savoy.   In his application, the applicant complains that he has been banned from entering and staying in Italy by the Italian Constitution. The Constitution of the Italian Republic was adopted on 22 June 1947 and entered into force on 1 January 1948. Article XIII of the transitional and final provisions of the Constitution concerns the members and descendants of the House of Savoy. The first paragraph lays down: “The members and descendants of the House of Savoy shall have no voting rights and shall not be entitled to hold public office or to stand for election”. The second paragraph provides: “The former Kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and male descendants are banned from entering and staying on Italian territory”.   The Italian courts have issued a number of opinions ( Consiglio di Stato ) and decisions (through the ordinary and constitutional courts) interpreting the latter paragraph.   Two of the opinions of the Consiglio di Stato were issued after Umberto II’s death. A third opinion, issued on 1 March 2001, concerned how the Article XIII was to be construed after Marie-José de Savoie’s death on 27 January 2001. The Consiglio di Stato expressed the opinion that the ban could not apply to all the male descendants of the former Kings of Italy.   Complaints   Before the European Court of Human Rights the applicant complains firstly of the ban on his entering and staying in Italy. He alleges a violation of Article 3, paragraph 2, of Protocol No.   4 (prohibition of expulsion of nationals) of the European Convention on Human Rights and seeks a declaration by the Court that he and his male descendants are entitled to enter and stay on the territory of the Italian State.   Secondly, the applicant complains that he has been discriminated against in the enjoyment of his fundamental rights and freedoms (Article 14 of the Convention), and in particular that he has been denied his rights to liberty (Article 5), to respect for his private and family life (Article 8) and to freedom of assembly (Article 11), his electoral rights (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) and the right to defend himself (Article 6); he adds that the consequence has been that the Italian State has breached the prohibition on treatment which, taken as a whole and having regard to its length and its effects, both non-pecuniary and pecuniary, has to be regarded as humiliating and degrading (Article 3). The applicant also complains that his property has been confiscated (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and of a restriction on his freedom of movement (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).   Decision   In its decision the Court declared admissible the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 § 2 of Protocol No. 4, Article 3 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone or together with Article 14 of the Convention, while reserving all arguments on the merits. It declared the remaining complaints inadmissible.   The case was examined by a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian), ad hoc judge , Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Egils Levits (Latvian), judges , Anatoly Kovler (Russian), substitute judge   and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .     ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.