Resolution ResDH (2003)72 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 14 December 1999 (final on 14 March 2000) in the case of A.M. against Italy

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 April 2003 at the 834th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A.M. case delivered on 14 December 1999 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 37019/97) against Italy, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 June 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr A.M., an Italian national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in that he was given a two-year suspended prison sentence on the basis of testimony obtained in the United States before the trial; no legal representative of the applicant was present when the testimony was given and the applicant was therefore denied the opportunity to challenge the witnesses concerned;

Whereas in its judgment of 14 December 1999 the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, taken together with Article 6, paragraph 3 d), of the Convention;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, 50 000 000 Italian lire in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 4 837 900 Italian Lira in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 2,5% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 14 December 1999, having regard to Italy’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that the violation resulted from the fact that the Florence Public Prosecutor had specifically asked that no lawyer should attend the witness examination in the United States even though the judicial co - operation treaty between Italy and United States allows for the presence of a lawyer and, consequently, on account of the specific circumstances of the case new, similar violations of the Convention could be avoided for the future by informing the authorities concerned of the requirements of the Convention. Accordingly, copies of the judgment had been sent out to all judges and prosecutors together with a circular letter stressing the need to respect the right of the defence in the contest of the application of the judicial co - operation treaty between Italy and United States; in addition, the Court’s judgment has been published in the review Documenti giustizia (No. 6, November-December 2000);

Having satisfied itself that on 24 May 2000, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 14 December 1999,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Italy, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.