Resolution ResDH(2005)90
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 16 November 2000 (final on 16 February 2001)
in the case of Vaccaro against Italy
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 October 2005
at the 940th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, 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 Vaccaro case delivered on 16 November 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 41852/98) against Italy, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 March 1998 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Antonino Vaccaro, an Italian national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint related to the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand ;
Whereas in its judgment of 16 November 2000 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 10 000 000 Italian lire in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 5 000 000 Italian lire in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 2.5% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 16 November 2000, having regard to Italy's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 25 May 2001, after the expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 16 November 2000, and having taken note of the fact that the applicant has waived his right to default interest in view of the minimal sum involved,
Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Italy, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)90
Information provided by the Government of Italy
during the examination of the Vaccaro case
By the Committee of Ministers
The Government of Italy recalls that the violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, found in this case resulted from the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand (4 years and 8 months, between 1993 and 1999) on account of the lack of reasonable grounds justifying its continuation and of the failure of the authorities to act with due expedition during the preliminary investigations and the trial.
During the period of detention at issue, in 1995, Articles 274 and 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) were amended: they now provide that a judicial decision ordering pre-trial detention may be annulled ex officio if its necessity is not explicitly justified in the light of specific criteria (such as an actual and concrete risk that the accused person might tamper with the evidence, commit a serious crime or escape, or serious indications of the accused's guilt).
These new provisions strengthen the guarantees already existing under Italian law, providing for the revocation of pre-trial detention if the reasons justifying it no longer exist (see Article 299 CPP) and providing that the time already elapsed should be taken into account when assessing the need to maintain a person in detention (see for example Court of Cassation's decision No. 2395 of 16 October 1997). In addition, Article 303 of the CCP sets the maximum duration of pre-trial detention in different situations.
Lastly, as regards the due expedition required in the conduct of criminal proceedings, which was partially at the origin of the violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, found in this case, reforms of the judicial system aimed at speeding up such proceedings are under examination by the Committee of Ministers in the framework of its supervision of the execution of several judgments and decisions concerning specifically the structural problem of excessive length of criminal proceedings in Italy (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)135).
In the light of the above, the government considers that Italy has fulfilled its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to comply with the Court's judgment in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy