CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 décembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sD0D8E54B { width:97.62%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s6FBF4572 { width:27.12%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1BF99F31 { width:16.22%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCE70FFF4 { width:18.7%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sDFA4B3DE { width:17.7%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7162BD9 { width:20.28%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6CB845D { width:27.12%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F685C64 { width:16.22%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8DBD0BB9 { width:18.7%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s463DB5D2 { width:17.7%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD54FDBAB { width:20.28%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)173 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani and Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani No. 2 against Italy   (Application No. 35972/97, judgment of 2 August 2001, final on 12 December 2001 Application No. 26740/02, judgment of 31 May 2007, final on 31 August 2007)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the infringement of the right of association of the applicant, an Italian Masonic association, as its members were discriminated against when applying for public posts in the Marche and Friuli Venezia Giulia regions (violation of Article 11 in both cases, in connection with Article 14 in case no. 26740/02) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)173   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani and Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani No. 2 against Italy     Introductory case summary   These cases concern disproportionate interference with the freedom of association of the applicant, an Italian Masonic association affiliated to the Universal Freemasons, due to a regional law of the Marche region obliging candidates to public office to declare that they are not members of the association (Case No.   35972/97, violation of Article 11) and to a regional law of the Friuli Venezia Giulia region requiring, among members of non-secret associations, only members of Masonic associations to declare their membership when applying for certain posts in the regional government (Case No. 26740/02, violation of Article 14 in connection with article 11). In the first case, the European Court concluded that the restriction established by Article 5 of Marche Regional Law No. 34 of 1996, was not necessary in a democratic society nor was it justified by the character of the public office concerned by the law. In the second case, the European Court found that there was no objective or reasonable justification for the difference of treatment (pursuant to article 7bis ante, paragraph 5, of Regional Law No. 75 of 23/06/1978 as modified by Regional Law No. 1 of 2000) between members of non-secret associations.     I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani (35972/97) - - 10 000 000 ITL 10 000 000 ITL Paid on 10/04/2002 Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani No. 2 (26740/02) - - 5   000 EUR 5   000 EUR Paid on 29/11/2007   b) Individual measures   In both cases the European Court considered that the finding of the violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction with respect to non-pecuniary damages. Following the abrogation of the provisions at the origin of the violations (see below), the applicant association and its members are no longer subject to restrictions considered by the Court to be contrary to the Convention.     II.   General measures   Following the violations found by the Court, legislative changes took place. In particular, as regards Case No.   35972/97, the Regional Council of Marche approved, on 01/12/2005, Law No. 27/2005 (which entered into force on 08/12/2005), which abolished, in Article 5§2 of Law No. 34/1996 (see above), the obligation for candidates to public office in the Region to declare that they are not freemasons. The new law provides the exclusion from public office in the Region only for persons belonging to secret societies, banned under Article 18 of the Constitution, if such membership has been established by a decision having the force of res   iudicata. In case No. 26740/02, Regional Law No. 2 of 23/01/2008 amended article 7bis ante of Law No. 75 of 23/06/1978 (see above), which was at the basis of the violation found by the European Court. This article no longer makes reference to Masonic associations.   Both judgments have been published in the database of the Court of Cassation on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights ( www.italgiure.giustizia.it ). This website is widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure was required in these cases, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants by the Court, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Italy has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies