CASE OF COLOZZA AGAINST ITALY
Doc ref: 9024/80 • ECHR ID: 001-55582
Document date: December 14, 1993
- Inbound citations: 4
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
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 Colozza case delivered on 12 February 1985 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
5 May 1980 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by
Mr Giacinto Colozza, an Italian national, who complained of his
conviction in absentia;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 18 July 1983;
Recalling that in the course of the proceedings the Court was
informed of Mr Colozza's death and that the status of applicant was
transferred to his widow;
Whereas in its judgment of 12 February 1985 the Court
unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);
- held that the respondent State was to pay to Mrs Colozza
6 000 000 Italian lire by way of 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
12 February 1985, 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 the Government of Italy has paid
Mrs Colozza the sum provided for in the judgment of
12 February 1985,
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 (93) 64
Information provided by the Government of Italy
during the examination of the Colozza case
by the Committee of Ministers
Article 183bis 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 183bis, accordingly, lays down in
its second paragraph that restitution of time in order to appeal
against an in absentia judgment may be requested, not only in cases
involving exceptional cirumstances or force majeure, but also 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 - following notification of
the absentia judgment according to the procedure prescribed for
accused persons who are untraceable ("irreperibili") - when the
applicant 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 take into account
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 laid
down in the Colozza case in their application of the new
regulations and, in particular, to ensure that a person in a
situation like that of Mr Colozza is not left with the burden of
proving that he was not seeking to evade justice or that his
absence was due to force majeure.