CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 17 septembre 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       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 Frau case delivered on 19 February 1991 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 22 December 1982 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Aventino Frau, an Italian national, who complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings instituted against him;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 16 February 1990;        Whereas in its judgment of 19 February 1991 the Court unanimously:   -     held that there had been a violation of Article 6,      paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;   -     held that the respondent State was to pay to Mr Frau      20 million Italian lire for non-pecuniary damage;   -     dismissed the remainder of the claim for 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 19 February 1991, 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 the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment,        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(92)54          Information provided by the Government of Italy            during the examination of the Frau case                  by the Committee of Ministers        The new Code of Criminal Procedure, which came into force on 24 October 1989, abolished the "investigating judge" and conferred powers of investigation upon the Public Prosecutor, to whom the criminal police are strictly subordinate.   The control of the lawfulness of the preliminary investigation has been conferred upon a judge who, without any initiative in the taking of evidence, may authorise all measures of investigation interfering with individual freedoms (detention, judicial supervision, telephone tapping, seizures, etc.) and who decides, at the end of the preliminary investigation, whether the person charged should be committed for trial or discharged, or whether the proceedings should be withdrawn.        It is to be noted that the prosecution has only six months to institute criminal proceedings.   An extension of preliminary investigations may be granted by the judge for periods not exceeding six months, provided that the total length of the investigation is not longer than eighteen months or exceptionally two years in cases concerning particularly serious offences, specifically listed, or cases requiring numerous and complex investigations or measures to be taken abroad.        At the end of the preliminary investigation, when the Public Prosecutor requests the judge to bring the case before the Court, the decision taken by the judge at the so-called preliminary hearing results in the committal for trial and at the same time in the fixing of a date for the hearing, after the parties and the competent jurisdiction have been consulted.   The proceedings before the trial court are adversarial, evidence being taken orally following the English system of cross examination.        In order to reduce the duration of procedures, the new Code of Criminal Procedure also set up simplified procedures with a view either to avoiding hearings before the trial court: abridged judgments (giudizio abbreviato) or proceedings by decree (procedimento per decreto); or to avoiding preliminary hearings: direct judgments (giudizio direttissimo) or immediate judgments (giudizio immediato).   Furthermore, if legal conditions are met, the person charged and the Public Prosecutor may ask the competent judge to apply a penalty upon request (applicazione della pena su richiesta or pattegiamento).   This request implies proposing to the judge of preliminary investigations or to the trial court the imposition of a given penalty, including a prison term of up to two years.   Since the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 50% of the new cases have been terminated speedily by application of the procedure of penalty upon request.        Finally, the Italian Court of Cassation made certain internal reforms with a view to reducing the average length of the proceedings dealing with criminal appeals.   By way of an example, whereas the criminal appeals pending on 30 June 1987 still numbered around 55 000, at the end of May 1991 they numbered 14 713; the Court of Cassation, having decided 44 811 appeals in 1990, has caught up on its backlog.        The Italian authorities hope that, after a transitional period of coexistence of the old and new systems, the implementation of the new Code of Criminal Procedure will ensure that in future criminal proceedings will lead to judgments delivered within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention.        Furthermore, an act dated 17 January 1992 provided for a budgetary appropriation of 252 000 million Italian lire (approximately one thousand million French francs) in order to finance urgent measures in support of information systems and the structures, means and services of the administration of justice.        The just satisfaction awarded by the Court was paid on 7 September 1992.