SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 38576/97
by Carlo BARATTELLI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 August 1997 and registered on 13 November 1997,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1946 and living in Treviso. Until July 1995, the applicant was a civil servant in the Ministry of Public Works.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 4 May 1988 the Genoa Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that criminal proceedings concerning his public duties had been instituted against him. These proceedings were subsequently transferred to the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office, and on 7 September 1988 the Milan investigating judge informed the applicant that a charge of corruption was pending against him.
On 26 May 1989 the applicant was heard by the Milan investigating judge.
On 31 May 1991 the applicant and forty-four other persons were committed for trial before the Milan District Court. The first hearing, initially scheduled for 27 January 1993, took place on 12 January 1994.
In a judgment of 31 March 1994, the District Court, following the plea bargain procedure (“applicazione della pena su richiesta delle parti”) sentenced the applicant to one year and four months’ imprisonment. This decision was filed with the registry only on 19 March 1997. It became final on 6 July 1997.
In the meantime, by an order of 31 July 1995, the Ministry of Public Works dismissed the applicant from his post as a consequence of his criminal conviction.
THE LAW
1. The applicant’s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 4 May 1988, date on which the applicant was informed that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him, and ended on 6 July 1997 when the Milan District Court’s judgment became final. They therefore lasted nine years, two months and two days for one instance.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject this allegation on the ground that the case was complex, especially by reason of the number of accused and of the nature of the charges. They furthermore observe that the length is partly due to the fact that the case was dealt with in the transitional period after the entry into force, on 24 November 1989, of the new code of Criminal procedure. They finally note that the applicant had not been deprived of his liberty and that the delay in filing the District Court’s judgment with the registry did not affect the applicant’s situation, since the executive part of this judgment had been publicly read out at the hearing of 31 March 1994.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by its case-law on the question of “reasonable time”, and having regard to all the material in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
2. The second complaint concerns the violation of the presumption of innocence, due to the Ministry of Public Works’ order of 31 July 1995.
The Court recalls that the presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 will be violated if a decision given by a judge or by another public authority and concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law (Allenet de Ribement v. France judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p.16, §§ 35-36).
The Court observes that in the present case, the Ministry’s order of 31 July 1995 was given after the applicant’s criminal conviction.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant’s complaint relating to the length of the proceedings;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy