CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 octobre 2002

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560DCDD3 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s595305E7 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     524   24.10.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MASTROMATTEO v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing a judgment in the case of Mastromatteo v. Italy (application no. 37703/97). The Court held   unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) with regard to the preventive measures; and by sixteen votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention with regard to the procedural guarantees.     1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Raffaele Mastromatteo, is an Italian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Cinisello Balsamo (province of Milan).   On 8 November 1989 the applicant’s son was murdered by three criminals who were making their getaway after robbing a bank. It was subsequently proved that two of the three had been serving prison sentences pursuant to final criminal convictions for repeated violent offences. At the material time one of these two, who had fired the fatal shot, had been released on prison leave; the other was subject to a semi-custodial regime. The judges responsible for the execution of their sentences had granted prison leave and the semi-custodial measure on the ground that, according to the prison authorities’ reports on their conduct in prison, they were not a danger to society. The three criminals were later sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment. The applicant applied for compensation under a law which made provision for aid to be paid to the victims of terrorism and organised crime, but his claim was refused, first by the Minister of the Interior and then by the President of Italy.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 11   December 1996 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 14 September 2000. On 22 November 2001 the Chamber dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. A hearing was held on 13 March 2002.   Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Benedetto Conforti (Italian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Egils Levits (Latvian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the decisions of the judges responsible for the execution of sentences who had granted his son’s killers prison leave had led to his death. He further complained that he had not received any compensation from the State.   Decision of the Court   The alleged failure on the authorities’ part to discharge their duty to protect the life of the applicant’s son   On the question whether the system of alternative measures to imprisonment engaged the responsibility of the State under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court noted that one of the murderers had been released on prison leave. One of the essential functions of a prison sentence was to protect society, but the Court recognised the legitimate aim of a policy of social reintegration. It noted that Italian legislation made provision for leave to be granted to prisoners who had served part of their sentences, the period concerned being dependent on the gravity of the offences of which they had been convicted. Furthermore, prisoners were required to show a genuine willingness to participate in the reintegration programme. The assessment of such prisoners’ dangerousness to society was left to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, who consulted the prison authorities and if necessary the police for that purpose. The Court noted that Italian legislation laid down restrictions on alternative measures where crimes committed by members of criminal organisations were concerned.   The Court considered that the system introduced in Italy provided sufficient protective measures for society, as evidenced by the statistics supplied by the respondent State, which showed that few crimes were committed by prisoners subject to a semi-custodial regime or by prisoners who had absconded while on prison leave. Accordingly, there was nothing to suggest that the system of reintegration measures applicable in Italy at the material time should be called into question under Article 2.   As to whether the adoption and implementation of the alternative measures disclosed a breach of the duty of care required in this area by Article 2 of the Convention, the Court pointed out that the relevant risk in the present case was a risk to life for members of the public at large rather than for one or more identified individuals. In granting the alternative measures the judges responsible for the execution of sentences had based their decisions on reports from the prison authorities which gave positive accounts of the conduct of the two prisoners. The Court considered that there was nothing to make the national authorities fear that the release of these two men might pose a real and immediate threat to life. Nor was there anything to alert the authorities to the need to take additional measures against them once they had been released. Admittedly, one of them had been granted prison leave after an accomplice had taken advantage of his own prison leave to abscond, but that did not in the Court’s view establish a special need for caution, since there was no way of knowing that they would commit an offence which would result in the loss of life.   Consequently, the Court considered that it had not been established that the prison leave granted to the prisoners gave rise to any failure on the part of the judicial authorities to protect the applicant’s son’s right to life. It concluded that there had been no violation of Article 2 as regards the complaint relating to the authorities lack of diligence.   The alleged violation of the procedural obligation arising from Article 2   As the killers had been prisoners in the State’s charge at the material time, the Court considered that a procedural obligation arose to determine the circumstances of the applicant’s son’s death. As a result of the investigation the criminals had been found guilty of murder, sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment and ordered to compensate the applicant. Consequently, the Court considered that the State had satisfied the obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to guarantee a criminal investigation.   As to whether the procedural obligations under Article 2 required a remedy by which a claim could be lodged against the State, the Court noted that the applicant’s compensation claim had been dismissed on the ground that the statute relied on was not applicable to the case. However, he could have sued the State for negligence, for which purpose there had been two remedies available to him, namely an action against the State under Article 2043 of the Civil Code and an action against the judges responsible for the execution of sentences under the Judges’ Liability Act (Law no. 117). In that connection, the Court observed that Article 2 of the Convention did not impose on States an obligation to provide compensation on the basis of strict liability. Consequently, the Court considered that the procedural requirements under Article 2 of the Convention had been satisfied.   Judge Bonello expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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. [1] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.