CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 28 janvier 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s55D91DC7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:12pt } .sD8D566C3 { height:0pt; text-align:left; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:-1 } .s18312A14 { margin-top:89.5pt; margin-left:180.75pt; position:absolute } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5ABC7ADF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; line-height:12pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (97) 102   HUMAN RIGHTS   APPLICATION No.   25882/94   MARCHETTI ALESSANDRO II AGAINST ITALY   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 January 1997 at the 582nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   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 on 16 April 1996 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 8 April 1994 by Mr   Alessandro Marchetti against Italy (Application No.   25882/94);   Whereas on 31 May 1996 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the case has not been referred to the European Court of Human Rights, either by the Commission or by a State entitled to do so under Article 48 of the Convention, within the time-limit of three months from the transmission of the report to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers; considering, however, that within this time-limit, the applicant seized the Court in accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 21   October 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called upon to take a decision in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention and with Article 48 of the Convention as amended by Article 5 of Protocol No. 9 for those States having ratified the latter;   Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 23   January 1996, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention;   Whereas at the 582nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 28 January 1997, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article   32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention,   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case;   Decides to pursue the examination of the present case in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.