SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 45260/99
by Costantino ICOLARO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 21 October 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to the application introduced on 30 October 1998 and registered on 7 January 1999;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1948 and currently residing in Moiano (Benevento). In 1988, he was a member of the Bucciano (Benevento) Municipal Commission (“Commissione municipale”), a body responsible for expressing opinions on the granting of public allowances. The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr Pietro Palma, a lawyer practising in Benevento.
On an unspecified date, the Benevento Public Prosecutor's Office commenced criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of abuse of public authority (“abuso d'ufficio”) in the course of his duties as a member of the Municipal Commission. On 10 October 1991 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, forgery and swindle.
The date of the preliminary hearing, scheduled for 22 January 1992, was first postponed until 15 April 1992 at the Public Prosecutor's request, then adjourned because of the political elections on 5 and 6 April 1992. A hearing scheduled for 1 July 1992 was postponed until 28 October 1992 in order to enable the lawyers of the Benevento Bar Association to take part in an assembly. On 28 October and 25 November 1992, as well as on 20 January and 3 March 1993, the case was adjourned awaiting the outcome of another set of criminal proceedings. Two hearings on 2 June and 20 October 1993 were postponed by reason of a lawyers' strike of indefinite duration.
On 17 November 1993 the parties presented their conclusive arguments and on an unspecified date the Benevento investigating judge committed the applicant and his six co-accused for trial, commencing before the Benevento District Court on 3 October 1994.
This hearing was adjourned at the request of one of the accused until 3 April 1995, then postponed by the District Court of its own motion. Three hearings scheduled for 12 May, 14 June and 13 July 1995 were adjourned because of three different lawyers' strikes, ending respectively on 27 May, 24 June and 13 July 1995. On 20 October 1995 and 18 January 1996, some witnesses were examined and the parties presented their final pleadings.
In a judgment of 18 January 1996, filed with the court's registry on 25 January 1996, the District Court convicted the applicant for abuse of public authority to six months' imprisonment and to a fine of 400,000 lire.
On 28 February 1996, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Naples Court of Appeal. By an act of 8 May 1997, the President of the Court of Appeal scheduled the date of the hearing for 18 June 1997. However, the proceedings were adjourned first until 10 November 1997, then until 9 February 1998 by reason of a lawyers' strike. On 29 April 1998, the parties presented their final pleadings.
In a judgment of the same day, filed with the court's registry on 12 May 1998, the Naples Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant. This decision became final on 22 June 1998.
THE LAW
The applicant's complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 10 October 1991 and ended on 22 June 1998.
According to the applicant, the overall duration of the proceedings - a period of six years, eight months and twelve days - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government disputed this claim.
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, unanimously, the Court
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy