Search
document

Document text Analytics

R.C. AGAINST ITALY

Doc ref: 12953/87 • ECHR ID: 001-49391

Document date: June 9, 1994

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

R.C. AGAINST ITALY

Doc ref: 12953/87 • ECHR ID: 001-49391

Document date: June 9, 1994

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 report drawn up by the European

Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31

(art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged

on 24 June 1986 by Mr R.C. against Italy

(Application No. 12953/87);

Whereas on 3 December 1992 the Commission transmitted the

said report 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 application the applicant complained in

particular of not having been able to defend himself against the

criminal charges brought against him and of not having received

a fair trial in the criminal proceedings in which he was

convicted in absentia;

Whereas the Commission declared the application in part

admissible on 31 March 1992 and in its report adopted on

19 October 1992 expressed unanimously the opinion that there had

been a violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3.c (art. 6-1,

art 6-3-c) combined, of the Convention;

Whereas, at the 491st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies

held on 1 April 1993, 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 this case

a violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3.c (art. 6-1,

art. 6-3-c) combined, 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

11 March 1994;

Whereas at the 512nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies,

held on 4 May 1994, the Committee of Ministers did not find it

necessary to award any just satisfaction to the applicant as the

latter had not submitted any request to this effect;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government

of Italy to inform it of the measures taken following its

decision of 1 April 1993, having regard to Italy's obligation

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

abide by it,

Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the

Government of Italy, which information appears in the appendix

to this resolution, that it has exercised its functions under

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

Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the

Commission in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (94) 42

Information provided by the Government of Italy

during the examination of the case of R.C. against Italy

by the Committee of Ministers

Article 183 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as

modified by Section 1 of Law No. 22 of 23 January 1989, has

reformed the Italian regulations in respect of restitution of

time (restituzione nel termine) and anticipated the regulations

laid down in Article 175 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure

in such a manner as to align these regulations with the

requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights as

developed by the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 183 bis, accordingly, lays down in its second paragraph

that, apart from cases involving exceptional circumstances or

force majeure, restitution of time in order to appeal against an

in absentia judgment may also be requested when the accused can

produce evidence that he did not have effective knowledge of the

judgment in question. However, this right cannot be exercised

when the defence counsel has already submitted an appeal or when

it is his fault that the accused has not been able to gain

knowledge of the judgment or - when the in absentia judgment is

notified in the forms prescribed for accused persons who are

untraceable (irreperibili) - when the accused has voluntarily put

himself in such a position as not to be able to be notified of

the proceedings.

Considering the aim of the new regulations and the increased

willingness demonstrated by the Italian courts to consider the

requirements of the Convention (see, inter alia, the judgment of

the Court of Cassation, First Criminal Section, of 12 May 1993

in the Medrano case), the Italian Government is of the opinion

that the Italian courts will not fail to respect the principles

at the basis of the Committee of Ministers' decision in the

present case in their application of the new regulations.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant