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 case of T. against Italy delivered on 12 October 1992
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 1 April 1988 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention
by Mr T., an Italian national, who complained that the in absentia
proceedings conducted against him had deprived him of the
guarantees laid down in Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 13 September 1991;
Whereas in its judgment of 12 October 1992 the Court
unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);
- held that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claims 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 12 October 1992, 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,
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 (93) 65
Information provided by the Government of Italy
during the examination of the case of T.
by the Committee of Ministers
Article 183bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as modified
by Section 1 of Law No. 22 of 23 January 1989, has reformed the
Italian regulations in respect of restitution of time
("restituzione nel termine") and anticipated the regulations laid
down in Article 175 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in such
a manner as to align these regulations with the requirements of the
European Convention on Human Rights as developed by the European
Court of Human Rights. Article 183bis, accordingly, lays down in
its second paragraph that restitution of time in order to appeal
against an in absentia judgment may be requested, not only in cases
involving exceptional circumstances or force majeure, but also when
the accused can produce evidence that he did not have effective
knowledge of the judgment in question. However, this right cannot
be exercised when the defence counsel has already submitted an
appeal or when it is his fault that the accused has not been able
to gain knowledge of the judgment or - following notification of
the in absentia judgment according to the procedure prescribed for
accused persons who are untraceable ("irreperibili") - when the
accused has voluntarily put himself in such a position as not to be
able to be notified of the proceeedings.
Considering the aim of the new regulations and the increased
willingness demonstrated by the Italian courts to take into account
the requirements of the Convention (see, inter alia, the judgment
of the Court of Cassation, First Criminal Section, of 12 May 1993
in the Medrano case), the Italian Government is of the opinion that
the Italian courts will not fail to respect the principles laid
down in the case of T. against Italy in their application of the
new regulations.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy