Search
document

Document text Analytics

L.M. I AND L.M. II AGAINST ITALY

Doc ref: 16805/90;16806/90 • ECHR ID: 001-49502

Document date: September 11, 1995

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

L.M. I AND L.M. II AGAINST ITALY

Doc ref: 16805/90;16806/90 • ECHR ID: 001-49502

Document date: September 11, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32

(art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),

Having regard to the reports drawn up by the European

Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31)

of the Convention relating to the applications lodged on

6 March 1990 by Mr L.M. against Italy (Applications Nos. 16805/90

and 16806/90);

Whereas on 25 February 1994 the Commission transmitted the

said reports to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period

of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having

been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance

of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;

Whereas in his applications, as declared admissible by the

Commission on 13 October 1993 (final decisions as to the

admissibility), the applicant complained of the excessive length of

certain criminal proceedings in both applications and of a breach

of his right to a peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in

Application No. 16805/90;

Whereas in its reports adopted on 11 January 1994 the

Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been

a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention

in both applications and that it was not necessary to examine the

case under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in Application

No. 16805/90;

Whereas, at the 519th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

on 19 October 1994, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the

opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in

accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in these cases

a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the

Convention;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made

by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just

satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented

by a letter of the President of the Commission dated

9 December 1994;

Whereas, at the 527th meeting of the Deputies held

on 6 February 1995, the Committee of Ministers decided, in

accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the

Convention, that the Government of Italy was to pay the applicant

as just satisfaction, for each one of these two applications,

within three months, 7 000 000 Italian

lire in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1 000 000 Italian lire

in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of

16 000 000 Italian lire;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of

Italy to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of

19 October 1994 and 6 February 1995, having regard to Italy's

obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the

Convention to abide by them;

Whereas the Government of Italy recalled that measures had

already been taken to prevent the repetition of the violation found

in this case, notably through the entering into force on

24 October 1989 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (see, inter

alia, Resolution DH (92) 54 in the case of Frau against Italy and

Resolution DH (94) 15 in the case of Sanfilippo against Italy;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that

on 3 May 1995 the Government of Italy paid the applicant the total

sum of 16 000 000 Italian lire as just satisfaction,

Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the

Government of Italy, that it has exercised its functions under

Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;

Authorises the publication of the reports adopted by the

Commission in this case.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant