Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)49[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Osu against Italy
(Application No. 36534/97, judgment of 11 July 2002, final on 11 October 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 fact that the applicant could not challenge his conviction in absentia in 1989, his appeal having been rejected in 1996 as time-barred (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1), (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, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (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)49
Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment
in the case of Osu against Italy
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the fact that the applicant could not challenge his conviction in absentia in 1989, his appeal having been rejected in 1996 as time-barred. The European Court found that the failure unexplained by the Italian Court of Cassation, to apply Section 1 of Law 747/69 (concerning the suspension of time-limits in summer) deprived the applicant of his right to access to a court (violation of Article 6§1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
4 937 EUR
9 752 EUR
14 689 EUR
Paid on 25/03/2003
b) Individual measures
The applicant was sentenced in 1989 to seven years' imprisonment. Following his arrest in August 1995, he was detained until 31/05/97, upon which date he was released and expelled to the United Kingdom. He has submitted no request in respect of individual measures.
II.General measures
The violation found in this case does not have a systematic character, but was due to an isolated misapplication by the Court of Cassation of the provision concerning suspension of time-limits in summer. Subsequent to the facts at the origin of this case, the Court of Cassation stated, in a judgment (No. 6336) of 25/11/98, that the ten-day time-limit set out in Article 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also suspended from 1 August to 15 September pursuant to section 1 of Law 742/69. Accordingly, today the law and the case-law have clarified the rules applicable to suspension of time-limits in summer, thus preventing new, similar violations. Furthermore, an extraordinary appeal was introduced in 2001 (Section 625 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure), allowing for the re-examination of cases on grounds of material or factual mistakes (including the factual assessment of time-limits) before the Court of Cassation.
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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy