CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)52 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Saggio against Italy   (Application No. 41879/98, judgment of 25 October 2001, final on 25 January 2002)     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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicant's right to have at his disposal an effective remedy to claim sums due to him or to contest the action of the liquidators of the company of which he was creditor (violation of Article 13) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Italy's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment of 25 October 2001 (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its 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   - of 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 this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)52   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Saggio against Italy     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the lack of an effective remedy whereby the applicant might complain against a company under extraordinary administration, to obtain the payment of salary arrears due to him for his employment as an executive and to challenge the acts of the liquidators. A remedy was only possible, according to the law applicable at the material time (later amended), after the final liquidation balance sheet and the scheme for distribution had been established (violation of Article   13).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 10   000   000 ITL 6   919   320 ITL 16   919   320 ITL Paid on 02/04/2002   b) Individual measures   The applicant was deprived of an effective remedy for a part of the “extraordinary administration” procedure. Thereafter, according to the information provided by the government in February 2005, after the deposition of the final liquidation balance sheet and the scheme for distribution, accomplished on 13/10/1999, the applicant, had not lodged - although it had been possible for him to do it - a complaint in order to contest the scheme for distribution. As the applicant lodged no complaint, the final liquidation balance sheet and the scheme for distribution became incontestable as far as he was concerned, in accordance with national law.     II.   General measures   Law (No. 95 of 1979) which was at the basis of the violation was amended by legislative decree No. 270 of 08/08/1999, in force since August 1999. This decree introduced a new regulation in “extraordinary administration” proceedings and in particular allows any creditor to challenge the action of a liquidator before domestic courts (Article 17).   The judgment was published in the Bollettino Ufficiale of the Ministry of Justice, No. 13 of 17/07/2002 and brought to the attention of the Italian judicial authorities.       III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken will prevent new, 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 25 June 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies