SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 43598/98
by Mario CARROZZA
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 15 June 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits, Judges,
withMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 18 September 1998 by Mario CARROZZA against Italy and registered on 25 September 1998 under file no. 43598/98;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 19 March 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 10 May 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1958 and currently residing in Campolattaro (Benevento). In 1987, the applicant was a member of the Town Council’s technical Committee (“Commissione tecnica comunale”), a body responsible for expressing opinions on the issuing of building permits. He is represented before the Court by two lawyers practising in Benevento, Mr Vincenzo La Brocca and Mr Sergio Rando.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 January 1993 the Benevento Public Prosecutor's Office requested that the applicant and six other persons be committed for trial on charges of abuse of public authority and misconduct in the course of their duties as members of the Town Council’s technical Committee.
The applicant was given official notification of the charges brought against him on 4 February 1993, when an order fixing the date of the preliminary hearing was served on him.
The preliminary hearing, scheduled for 24 March 1993, was adjourned to 17 November 1993.
In an order given on the same day, the Benevento investigating judge committed the applicant and his six co-accused for trial, commencing on 3 October 1994, before the Benevento District Court.
On 3 October 1994 the proceedings were adjourned at the applicant’s request. A hearing scheduled for 15 May 1995 was postponed to 22 January 1996 because the lawyers of the Benevento Bar association were on strike from 6 until 27 May 1995. The proceedings were subsequently adjourned at the request of some of the accused to 24 June 1996, then postponed to 5 May 1997 by the District Court of its own motion.
On that occasion the proceedings were once again adjourned because the lawyers of the Benevento Bar association were on strike. On 7 July 1997, the accused requested and obtained an adjournment of the date of the hearing, which was eventually scheduled for 16 April 1998, on which date some witnesses were heard and the parties presented their final pleadings.
In a judgment given on the same day and filed with the court registry on 23 April 1998, the District Court declared that the charges brought against the applicant and his co-accused were time-barred.
COMPLAINT
The applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 September 1998 and registered on 25 September 1998.
By virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 November 1998, the application was thereafter examined by the European Court of Human Rights.
On 15 December 1998, the Court (Second Section) decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government, and invited them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.
The Government submitted their observations on 19 March 1999, to which the applicant replied on 10 May 1999.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 4 February 1993, when the applicant was given official notification of the charges brought against him and ended on 23 April 1998, when the Benevento District Court’s judgment was filed with the registry.
The Government observe that the proceedings were adjourned on five occasions for reasons related to the respect of the fundamental rights of the accused persons and of their lawyers and that the length of the periods in between individual hearings was due to the District Court’s workload and to the complexity of the case. They note that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment of 16 April 1998.
According to the applicant, the overall duration of the proceedings - a period of five years, two months and nineteen days - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He considers that the requests for adjournment and the lawyers’ strikes cannot justify the length of the periods in between individual hearings and points out that he does not complain about the merits of the District Court’s judgment.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of "reasonable time" (the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy