In the Angelucci case*,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with
Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the relevant
provisions of the Rules of Court***, as a Chamber composed of the
following judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Sir Vincent Evans,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr J. De Meyer,
Mr N. Valticos,
Mr A.N. Loizou,
Mr J.M. Morenilla,
and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 October 1990 and 24 January 1991,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
* The case is numbered 13/1990/204/264. The first number is the case's
position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant
year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's
position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation
and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the
Commission.
** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into
force on 1 January 1990.
*** The amendments to the Rules of Court which came into
force on 1 April 1989 are applicable to this case.
_______________
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court on 16 February 1990 by the
European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), within the
three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47
(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an
application (no. 12666/87) against the Italian Republic lodged with the
Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national,
Mr Roberto Angelucci, on 10 December 1986.
The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44,
art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Italy recognised the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the
request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case
disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33
para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he wished
to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would
represent him (Rule 30).
3. On 21 February 1990 the President of the Court decided that,
pursuant to Rule 21 para. 6 and in the interests of the proper
administration of justice, this case and the cases of Motta, Manzoni,
Pugliese (I), Alimena, Frau, Ficara, Viezzer, Maj, Girolami, Ferraro,
Triggiani, Mori, Colacioppo and Adiletta and Others* should be heard
by the same Chamber.
_______________
* Cases of Motta (4/1990/195/255) Manzoni (7/1990/198/258), Pugliese(I)
(8/1990/199/259), Alimena (9/1990/200/260), Frau (10/1990/201/261),
Ficara (11/1990/202/262), Viezzer (12/1990/203/263), Maj
(14/1990/205/265), Girolami (15/1990/206/266), Ferraro
(16/1990/207/267), Triggiani (17/1990/208/268), Mori (18/1990/209/269),
Colacioppo (19/1990/210/270), Adiletta and Others (20/1990/211/271-273)
_______________
4. The Chamber to be constituted for this purpose included ex
officio Mr C. Russo, the elected judge of Italian nationality
(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the
President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 26 March 1990, in the
presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the
other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher, Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Sir Vincent Evans, Mr J. De Meyer, Mr N. Valticos, Mr A.N. Loizou and
Mr J.M. Morenilla (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21
para. 4) (art. 43).
5. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber
(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of
the Italian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the
Commission and the applicant's lawyer on the need for a written
procedure (Rule 37 para. 1). In accordance with the order made in
consequence, the Registrar received the applicant's memorial on
26 June 1990 and the Government's memorial on 31 July. By a letter
received on 31 August, the Secretary to the Commission informed the
Registrar that the Delegate did not consider it necessary to submit
observations in writing.
6. On 29 August 1990 the Chamber decided to dispense with a
hearing, having found that the conditions for such derogation from the
usual procedure were satisfied (Rules 26 and 38).
7. On 31 August 1990 the Commission produced the file on the
proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the President's
instructions.
8. On 3 and 25 October, respectively, the registry received the
observations of the Commission and the Government on the applicant's
claims for just satisfaction.
AS TO THE FACTS
9. Mr Roberto Angelucci, an Italian national, resides in Rome.
He is a businessman. The facts established by the Commission pursuant
to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as follows
(paragraphs 13-17 of its report, see paragraph 11 below):
"13. The applicant was stopped on the public highway during a police
drugs raid carried out in August 1975. He states that he was taken to
the police station. He claims that a search was carried out at his
home by the police without the prior authorisation of the judicial
authorities. Nothing was found and the applicant was released the same
day. The Government have maintained that there is no indication in any
document in the file that the applicant was arrested or that a search
was carried out at his home.
A subsequent police report dated 5 August 1975 reported the applicant
and others to the Rome public prosecutor's office for aggravated
criminal association and drug trafficking. A file was opened by the
public prosecutor's office under file No. 9773/75 A.
14. On 14 August 1975, the public prosecutor's office asked for full
details of the applicant's civil status and on 3 December 1977 it
further requested a copy of his police record.
15. On 10 May 1978, the applicant appointed a defence lawyer.
On 27 October 1978, the applicant's defence lawyer filed the following
application with the public prosecutor's office: 'in view of the fact
that since 1975 proceedings (No. 9773/75 A) relating to a serious
charge have been pending against my client, that the latter is totally
unconnected with the offences and became involved in a police raid when
he was in his car, that the charges against him have caused and
continue to cause him serious prejudice, I request at the very least
that you question him, as he will be able to provide you with all the
necessary clarifications on the offences of which he is accused'.
16. On 28 November 1980, the public prosecutor's office transferred the
file to the investigating judge and applied for proceedings against the
applicant for criminal association and drug trafficking. An
investigation was opened under ordinary procedure and the case entered
on the investigating judge's register under no. 3175/80 A.
On 3 December 1980, the investigation was entrusted to Investigation
Section X at the Rome District Court; it was subsequently transferred
to Section III. On 13 February 1981, the applicant requested
unsuccessfully to be questioned by the investigating judge.
17. The summons served on the applicant was dated 11 January 1986.
The applicant was questioned for the first time by the investigating
judge on 28 January 1986 following the summons issued by the latter.
After that interrogation and without any further investigative measure
being performed, he was discharged on 16 July 1986 following
submissions by the public prosecutor's office. In these submissions,
it was stated that the applicant, together with certain co-defendants,
had been prosecuted because he had been mentioned in the police report
of 5 August 1975 as a 'customer of the Via delle Noci café' but that
no other evidence had been brought against him."
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
10. In his application of 10 December 1986 to the Commission
(no. 12666/87) Mr Angelucci complained of the length of the
proceedings; he relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
11. On 5 September 1989 the Commission declared the application
admissible. In its report of 13 December 1989 (Article 31) (art. 31),
it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The full text of the Commission's
opinion and of the separate opinion contained in the report is
reproduced as an annex to this judgment*.
_______________
* Note by the Registrar: For practical reasons this annex will appear
only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 196-C of Series
A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's
report is obtainable from the registry.
_______________
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
12. The applicant claimed that his case had not been examined
within a "reasonable time" as required under Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:
"In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone
is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...
tribunal ... ."
The Government disputed this view, whereas the Commission subscribed
thereto.
13. The period to be taken into consideration began, at the latest,
on 10 May 1978, when the applicant appointed defence counsel. It
ended, at the earliest, on 16 July 1986, with the pronouncement that
there was no case to answer and, at the latest, on 19 July 1986, when
the time-limit for an appeal by the prosecuting authorities against
that pronouncement expired (Article 199 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure).
14. The participants in the proceedings presented argument as to
the way in which the various criteria employed by the Court in this
context - such as the degree of complexity of the case, the conduct of
the applicant and that of the competent authorities - should apply in
the present case.
15. Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention guarantees to
everyone who is the object of criminal proceedings the right to a final
decision within a reasonable time on the charge against him.
The Court points out that, under its case-law on the subject, the
reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in the
light of the particular circumstances of the case. In this instance
the circumstances call for an overall assessment (see, mutatis
mutandis, the Obermeier judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179,
p. 23, para. 72).
The case was undoubtedly of some complexity owing to the number of
accused, but the Court notes that there were very long periods of
inactivity in the proceedings, at least as far as the applicant was
concerned, and that he did nothing to slow down their progress.
It follows that the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" in the instant
case a lapse of time of at least eight years and two months.
There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)
16. Under Article 50 (art. 50),
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal
authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is
completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from
the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows
only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this
decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary,
afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
Mr Angelucci sought 50,000,000 Italian lire for damage and in respect
of costs and expenses.
17. According to the Commission, these claims did not appear at
first sight excessive but it considered that the applicant should
provide more detailed information.
The Government took the view that at the most it would be appropriate,
if a violation were to be found, to award a modest sum for
non-pecuniary damage.
18. The evidence does not show that the applicant suffered
pecuniary damage deriving from the violation of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1). On the other hand, he must have sustained a degree of
non-pecuniary damage and he incurred costs and expenses before the
Convention organs. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court awards him a total of 30,000,000 lire.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention;
2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to Mr Angelucci
30,000,000 (thirty million) Italian lire for non-pecuniary damage and
for costs and expenses;
3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 19 February 1991.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: Marc-André EISSEN
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy