Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF MESSINA AGAINST ITALY

Doc ref: 13803/88 • ECHR ID: 001-55594

Document date: September 21, 1994

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

CASE OF MESSINA AGAINST ITALY

Doc ref: 13803/88 • ECHR ID: 001-55594

Document date: September 21, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54

(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

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

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human

Rights in the Messina case delivered on 26 February 1993 and

transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application against

Italy lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on

27 October 1987 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention

by Mr Antonio Messina, an Italian national, and that the Commission

declared admissible his complaint that certain criminal proceedings

brought against him had not been concluded within a reasonable time

and also certain complaints regarding interferences with his right

to respect for his correspondence;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 13 April 1992;

Whereas in its judgment of 26 February 1993 the Court:

- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of

Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);

- held, by seven votes to two, that there had been a breach of

Article 8 (art. 8);

- held, unanimously, that the respondent state was to pay to

the applicant, within three months, 5 000 000 Italian lire for

non-pecuniary damage;

- dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the claim for just

satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of

Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the

Convention;

Having invited the Government of Italy to inform it of the

measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment

of 26 February 1993, having regard to its obligation under

Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee

of Ministers, the Government of Italy gave the Committee

information about the measures taken in consequence of the

judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this

resolution;

Having satisfied itself that on 18 May 1994 the Government of

Italy paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment

of 26 February 1993,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied

by the Government of Italy, that it has exercised its functions

under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (94) 62

Information provided by the Government of Italy

during the examination of the Messina case

by the Committee of Ministers

The government finds that the reforms cited in, inter alia,

the appendix to Resolution DH (92) 37 in the Mori case (the reform

of the Code of Criminal Procedure which entered into force on

24 October 1989, the reform of the Court of Cassation's working

methods and the increased budgetary appropriations for the

administration of justice) are apt to prevent further repetitions

of the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time

found by the Court in the present case.

With regard to the violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the

Convention established by the Court, the government (Ministry of

Justice) sent out, on 14 March 1994, a circular to the directors of

regional prison administrations and to the directors of prisons for

adults (including district prisons) informing them of the contents

of the Court's judgment and ordering them to adopt the following

measures in order to solve, by administrative means, the problems

posed by this judgment while awaiting an amendment to Rule 36 of

the Enforcement Regulations (regolamente di esecuzione).

Prison directors should henceforth ensure that letters and

telegrams addressed to a detained person which are being held back

for inspection are entered on a special register. The addressee

must immediately be informed of the measure. If, following the

competent judicial authority's control of the interception, the

letters or telegrams in question are to be delivered to the

detained person who is the addressee, the prison director shall

ensure that the addressee signs and dates a receipt.

Outgoing letters and telegrams which are held back for

inspection must also be entered on the register. If, following the

control exercised by the competent judicial authority, the

correspondence is to be forwarded to the addressee, the date of

dispatch shall be noted on the register (in the case of a

registered or insured letter, or a telegram, the entry on the

used). The prison director shall also ensure that the persons

detained are informed of the decision. This shall be evidenced by

the detained person countersigning, with an indication of the date

of signature, the pertinent entry on the register.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant