Doc. 10651

26 July 2005

Implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Recommendation 1684 (2004)

Reply from the Committee of Ministers

adopted at the 935^th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (13 July 2005)

1.       The Committee of Ministers shares most of the concerns expressed by the Parliamentary Assembly in Recommendation 1684 (2004) and Resolution 1411 (2004) about difficulties and delays in the execution of some judgments. As a general remark, the Committee of Ministers wishes to point out that collective supervision of the execution of judgments by all member states is a unique responsibility entrusted to it by Article 46 of the Convention. Experience has often shown that execution of judgments may not always prove easy for the respondent states, especially when general measures are required to solve broad structural shortcomings of a complex nature. Supervision is also a complex task, requiring in-depth reflection on the measures proposed or taken by the respondent state as to their effective ability to solve the problems identified. Even the mere payment of just satisfaction has sometimes given rise to delicate problems that called for lengthy discussions and caused corresponding delays in implementation.

2.       Although this may delay the closure of some files, such discussions stem from the right of each member state, including the respondent state, to express its views on the relevant issues. Moreover, they constitute an essential part of the task entrusted to the Committee of Ministers by Article 46 of the Convention, and the Committee of Ministers must be in a position to carry out its duties with the accuracy and attention required by their importance, complexity and delicacy.

3.       The difficulties encountered by Italy in implementing the Strasbourg Court’s judgments to date, due to the large number of judgments and the complexity of some of the structural problems raised (such as those related to the efficiency of the judicial system, the lack of effective compliance with domestic law and judicial decisions in numerous instances in particular in the fields of housing and town planning) call for special efforts on the part of the authorities of the respondent state.

4.       The variety and complexity of the outstanding issues make it difficult to reply in detail about the implementation problems encountered in each pending case or group of cases involved.

5.       However, the Committee of Ministers has repeatedly urged Italy to comply with the Court’s judgments by adopting specific measures to resolve the problems at the basis of the violations found. Between 1997 and 2004 a dozen interim resolutions were adopted to that effect in various Italian cases and numerous other steps taken, such as the setting up of a special annual monitoring of the situation concerning the reform of justice aimed at solving the problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings (following Interim Resolution DH(2000)135).

6.       The Committee furthermore notes that it will be easier to implement rapidly the necessary execution measures relating to individual applicants once it is possible in Italy to re-open certain categories of proceedings having violated the Convention.

7.       The Committee stresses in this connection that it is paying particular attention to Italy’s continuing non-compliance with its decisions and resolutions in the Dorigo case, concerning which the Committee’s Chairman wrote on 18 January 2005 to the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs urging the authorities to ensure rapid implementation through either reopening of the impugned proceedings or adequate ad hoc measures providing redress for the violation found. The issue is all the more urgent as the applicant has served more than 11 years of the prison sentence imposed in violation of his right to a fair trial, a violation already established six years ago. The Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs replied on 28 January 2005 that the Ministry of Justice was considering the possibility of granting the applicant presidential pardon.

8.       Against this general background, the Committee welcomes the recent introduction before the Italian Parliament of a draft law of ratification of Protocol No. 14, which Italy signed on 13 May 2005, as well as some recent positive developments which tend to indicate that the question of compliance with the Strasbourg Court’s judgments is receiving increasing attention in parliamentary, governmental and judicial circles in Italy, for example:

-       new legislation to bring Italian rules on the detention regime and inspection of prisoners’ correspondence into compliance with the requirements of the Convention as identified by the European Court;

-       the recent introduction before the Italian Parliament of a draft law allowing reopening of proceedings following a finding of a violation of the Convention by the European Court;

-        the recent entry into force of a new law (known as “the law on competitiveness” No. 80/05 of 14 May 2005) containing inter alia provisions which, according to Italian authorities, may have a positive impact on the length of proceedings;

-        the recent entry into force of a new law (No. 60/05 of 22 April 2005) aimed among other things at extending, in conformity with the ECHR case-law, the possibility to appeal in absentia convictions, under certain conditions;

-        some improvement in the general situation concerning the expulsion of tenants, following recent case-law of the Constitutional court and the Court of Cassation on this issue;

-       recent judgments of the Court of Cassation and certain courts of appeal, which go some way towards granting direct effect to the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court;

-       the forthcoming visit to Strasbourg of a delegation of the Supreme Judicial Council (CSM) and plans to set up a training programme for Italian judges aimed at improving their knowledge and awareness of the obligations stemming from the Convention;

-       plans to establish a centralised authority or inter-ministerial agency to ensure adequate and prompt execution of Strasbourg Court judgments.

9.       The Committee trusts that the outstanding implementation issues will be handled by the Italian authorities without further delay and that priority will be given to the most urgent, overdue issues. Pursuant to its responsibilities under the Convention, the Committee will maintain the situation under close supervision, in order to ensure, as it does in respect of all member states, that the Court’s judgments are properly executed.

10.       As regards points iii) and iv) of the Recommendation, the Committee would like to recall that it is engaged in an ongoing preliminary general reflection on adequate responses in the event of slow or negligent execution or non-execution of judgments. New developments in the Committee’s working methods adopted in April 2004 and the increase in the use of interim resolutions have resulted from this reflection. Protocol No. 14 also addresses some of these problems (the CDDH is currently engaged in preparing proposals for a revision of the Rules) as do a number of recommendations referred to in the Committee of Ministers’ declaration “Ensuring the effectiveness of the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at national and European levels” of 12 May 2004. In the context of this ongoing reflection, the Committee is also examining proposals made by the Parliamentary Assembly on this subject and will keep the Assembly informed of the progress on these issues. The Committee stresses, however, that sanctions in the event of slow or negligent execution or non-execution of judgments are a matter for legally binding instruments adopted in the forms provided for by international law.

11.       The Committee furthermore stresses that, in their capacity as national legislators, members of the Parliamentary Assembly have an eminent role to play in facilitating the rapid execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights by promoting as a priority the adoption in their respective parliaments of the legislative measures needed to bring domestic law into conformity with the Convention.