CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 9 février 1996

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sC63A23C4 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sB331A92C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:13pt } .sAD58B6B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:13pt; font-style:italic } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s22CB0842 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s52C17ADF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; line-height:13pt } .sD986B746 { font-family:Arial; font-size:13pt; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s85436119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (96) 30 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATIONS No. 18704/91 DE FELICE AGAINST ITALY   Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 February 1996   at the 556th 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 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 28 May 1991 by Mr   Fabio De Felice against Italy (Application No.   18704/91);   Whereas on 10 August 1995 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, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention;   Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 30   November 1994, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings;   Whereas in its report adopted on 28 June 1995 the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention;   Whereas, at the 556th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies held on 9   February 1996, 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, 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.