Annunziata v Italy - 95/20 [2010] ECHR 1873 (15 September 2010)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the arbitrary monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence up to 2003, deriving from a lack of a clear legal framework (violations of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

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 applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the 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

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 these cases and

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

These cases concern the arbitrary monitoring of part of the applicants’ correspondence while in prison, in November 2002 (Annunziata) and from 1997 to 2003 (Salvatore Piacenti) (violations of Article 8). The applicants, subject to the special prison regime provided by Article 41bis of the Prisons Act applicable to prisoners convicted of offences linked with the Mafia, were subjected to restrictions inter alia with respect to correspondence.

The European Court found that the censorship of the applicants’ correspondence was not provided by the law in force at the material time, insofar as the law fixed neither the duration of the control of the correspondence nor the reasons required justifying it. In addition, the relevant regulation failed to indicate with sufficient clarity the extent and the terms of the exercise by the competent authorities of their power to evaluate. The Court noted the entry into force of Act No. 95/2004 (adding Article 18 ter to the Law on Prison Administration, see below), modifying the previous legislation and providing a clearer legal framework for the monitoring of correspondence: however, it observed that said law does not make it possible to remedy violations which occurred before it entered into force (Annunziata judgment, §7; Salvatore Piacenti judgment, §10).

The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages suffered. Furthermore, the Court found no link between the violations and pecuniary damages claimed by the applicants (Annunziata, §27; Salvatore Piacenti, §26). As regards new, similar violations in respect of the applicants, reference should be made to the general measures adopted by the Italian authorities.

The legal problems found by the Court were remedied through the introduction in April 2004 of Article 18 ter of the Law on Prison Administration (see Resolution ResDH(2005)55 adopted on 05/07/2005, closing supervision of the cases of Calogero Diana and others). In particular, limits to the monitoring of detainees’ correspondence were introduced: the length of monitoring cannot go beyond a 6-months time limit (extendable by up to 3 months) and correspondence with lawyers and international organisations for the protection of human rights cannot be subject to monitoring. Furthermore, any limitations on correspondence are ordered by the judge with a motivated decree, which can be appealed (reclamo).

The government considers that no individual measure was required in these cases, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants by the Court, that the general measures adopted will prevent 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 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
Annunziata (24423/03)	-	-	1 000 EUR	1 000 EUR
				Paid on 10/02/2010
Salvatore Piacenti (24425/03)	-	-	1 000 EUR	1 000 EUR
				Paid on 10/02/2010

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Annunziata v Italy - 95/20 [2010] ECHR 1873 (15 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1873.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1873