CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 décembre 2022

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { 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 } .sF004B676 { 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 } .sB30C44B0 { 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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { 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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1A61A404 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)351 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Three cases against Italy   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 December 2022 at the 1451 st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 17708/12 OLIVIERI AND OTHERS 25/02/2016 04/07/2016 45867/07 GAGLIONE AND OTHERS 21/12/2010 20/06/2011 35516/13 SCERVINO AND SCAGLIONI 05/12/2019 05/12/2019   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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and/or Article 13 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 established on account of the insufficient amount and delays in the payment of compensation awarded in the framework of a compensatory remedy (“Pinto”) available since 2001 to victims of excessively lengthy proceedings ( Gaglione and Others ) and on account of the ineffectiveness of this remedy for length of administrative proceedings where no application for expedited hearing was made ( Olivieri and Others and Scervino and Scaglioni );   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2022)1122 );   Noting that the question of individual measures has been resolved in these cases since the just satisfaction awarded by the Court was paid and the domestic proceedings which had given rise to “Pinto” applications were either terminated or brought to the attention of the domestic courts with a view to expediting them;   Noting with satisfaction that following the intervention of the Constitutional Court in 2019 an application for the case to be set down for an urgent hearing is no longer a precondition to complain about the excessive length of administrative proceedings in the framework of the “Pinto” remedy and that domestic courts appear to have incorporated and to apply this principle;   Considering that the demonstrated attention of the Italian higher jurisdictions to the case law of the European Court and the decisions of the Committee of Ministers concerning the “Pinto” Act will secure, if necessary, a Convention compliant interpretation of the 2012 amendments providing that complaints about proceedings lasting up to six years are inadmissible and that the amount of compensation cannot exceed the value at stake in the main proceedings;   Recalling that the questions relating to the violation of Articles 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1, established in the case of Gaglione and Others were examined in the context of the supervision of the   Giuseppe Mostacciuolo (No. 2) group of cases ( CM/ResDH(2015)155 and CM/ResDH(2017)289 );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.