EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 27240/95
Demetrio Cilione
against
Italy
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 9 September 1998)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1 - 5)1
II.ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 6 - 12)2
III.OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 13 - 24)3
A.Complaint declared admissible
(para. 13)3
B.Point at issue
(para. 14)3
C.As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 15 - 23)3
CONCLUSION
(para. 24)4
APPENDIX:DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION5
I.INTRODUCTION
1.The present Report concerns application No. 27240/95 introduced on 5 April 1995 against Italy and registered on 3 May 1995.
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1942 and currently residing in Reggio Calabria. He was represented before the Commission by Mr Domenico Callea, a lawyer practising in Reggio Calabria.
The respondent Government were represented by Mr Umberto Leanza, Head of the Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. The application was communicated to the respondent Government on 21 May 1997. Following an exchange of written observations, the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings (Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) was declared admissible on 16 April 1998. The decision on admissibility is appended to this Report.
3.Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (First Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 9 September 1998, in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the following members being present:
MMM.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
MrsJ. LIDDY
MML. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIČ
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
MrsM. HION
MrR. NICOLINI
4.In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Italy.
5.The text of this Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.
II.ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
6.The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1942 and residing in Reggio Calabria.
7.The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.On 5 October 1988 the applicant was interrogated by the Reggio Calabria Public Prosecutor in relation to certain facts dating back to 25 September 1987, under suspicion of having committed the offences of threats and illegal possession of firearms.
9.On 20 December 1988 the Public Prosecutor requested that the applicant be committed for trial and be summoned to appear before the Reggio Calabria Court on charges of threats and illegal possession of firearms.
10.By an act of 3 January 1994, which was served on the applicant on 19 January 1994, the applicant was summoned to appear before the Reggio Calabria Court at the hearing of 7 February 1994.
11.The hearing of 7 February 1994 was postponed first to 9 May 1994 and then to 14 November 1994, due to the absence of one of the judges and to the workload of the Court.
12.By a judgment delivered on 14 November 1994, the Reggio Calabria Court ruled that the proceedings against the applicant be discontinued on the ground of an amnesty of 12 April 1990. The judgment became final on 15 December 1994.
III.OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A.Complaint declared admissible
13.The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.
B.Point at issue
14.The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings complained of has exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
C.As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
15.The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
"In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ..."
16.The proceedings in question concerned the determination of the charges of threats and unlawful possession of firearms. The proceedings accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
17.These proceedings, which began on 5 October 1988 when the applicant was interrogated by the Public Prosecutor of Reggio Calabria, and ended when the discontinuance of the proceedings became final on 15 December 1994, lasted approximately six years and two months for one degree of jurisdiction.
18.The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court HR, Vallée v. France judgment of 26 April 1994, Series A no. 289-A, p. 17, para. 34; Eur. Court HR, Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III, p. 948, para. 39).
19.According to the Government, the length of the proceedings in question is due to the workload of the domestic court involved as well as to the fact that priority is given to proceedings where the accused are in detention. The applicant maintains that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
20.The Commission notes a delay of more than five years between 20 December 1988, when the Public Prosecutor requested that the applicant be committed for trial before the Court of Reggio Calabria, and 3 January 1994, when the applicant was summoned to appear at the hearing of 7 February 1994 before the same court. The Commission also notes that the hearing set on the latter date was adjourned first to 9 May 1994 and then to 14 November 1994 on account of the absence of a judge and of the workload of the Court. The Commission notes that no activity whatsoever was thus carried out over a period of almost six years.
21.The Commission has considered the submissions of the parties in this respect and finds that this delay of almost six years, which is attributable to the authorities, has not been convincingly explained by the Government.
22.The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems so as to enable the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1, including that of a trial within a "reasonable time" (cf. Eur. Court HR, Baggetta v. Italy judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119-B, p. 32, para. 23).
23.In the light of the criteria and circumstances of the case described above, the Commission considers that the reasonable time referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention has been exceeded.
CONCLUSION
24.The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
SecretaryPresident
to the First Chamberof the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy