Craxi v. Italy (no. 1) (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35

October 2001

Craxi v. Italy (no. 1) (dec.) - 34896/97

Decision 11.10.2001 [Section II]

Article 6

Article 6-3-b

Adequate facilities

Adequate time

Hearings held close together in multiple and complex criminal proceedings conducted simultaneously and with particular speed: admissible

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Effect of press campaign on judges trying criminal charges against a politician: admissible

Article 6-3-d

Examination of witnesses

Use in evidence of statements obtained during the preliminary investigation from co-accused who subsequently relied on the right to remain silent and from a co-accused who committed suicide before the committal for trial: admissible

Article 35

Article 35-1

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Effective domestic remedy

Appeal to Constitutional Court to contest the constitutionality of a law

The applicant was Secretary of the Italian Socialist Party between 1976 and 1993 and Prime Minister between 1983 and 1987. He died in January 2000, after his application had been lodged, but his heirs stated that they wished to pursue the application. Numerous sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant in connection with the “Clean Hands” investigation in Italy. They received widespread media coverage. The present application concerns one of the sets of criminal proceedings brought against him for corruption in the Eni-Sai affair. During the investigation some of the applicant’s co-defendants were questioned. In January 1994 the applicant and nine other people were committed for trial in the Milan District Court. The court ruled that the applicant, who in the meantime had settled in Tunisia, was unlawfully absent.  Between April and December 1994 fifty-five other hearings took place. At the hearings the court granted leave for certain statements incriminating the applicant to be read out, the statements having been obtained by the public prosecutor’s office during the investigation from one of the co-defendants, who had committed suicide four days after giving evidence. As the applicant’s other co-defendants had exercised their right to remain silent, the court granted leave for the statements they had made during the preliminary investigation to be read out. The statements, which incriminated the applicant, were added to the case file and used by the court in determining the merits of the charge against him. In a judgment of December 1994 the Milan District Court convicted the applicant in absentia and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed and subsequently applied to have the case referred to another appellate court. In February 1996 the Milan Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings in respect of the applicant and severed them from those in respect of the other defendants pending a decision on his application to have the case referred to a different court. In April 1996 the Court of Cassation declared that application inadmissible; the applicant consequently challenged the Court of Appeal on the ground that it had already formed an opinion as to his guilt. The challenge was declared inadmissible as being out of time. In the meantime the Milan Court of Appeal had upheld the main thrust of the judgment at first instance in respect of the other defendants. In a judgment of May 1996 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment at first instance in respect of the applicant. He appealed on points of law, contesting the use of statements made either during the preliminary investigations or in related proceedings by witnesses whom he had not had the opportunity to cross-examine. In March 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, noting, in particular, that his conviction had been based on incriminating statements made by four of the co-defendants. Between October 1993 and December 1994 more than one hundred hearings were arranged in the various sets of criminal proceedings brought simultaneously against the applicant. Between January and July 1994 his lawyers prepared for hearings in five sets of proceedings; preliminary hearings were arranged in four separate cases between May and June 1994, with the case file running to thousands of pages.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1, § 2 and § 3. The Government’s preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies): since he had not been entitled to apply directly to the Constitutional Court for a review of the constitutionality of a law, the applicant had not been required, in order to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint that incriminating statements made during the preliminary investigations had been used as evidence against him, to challenge the constitutionality of the Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure that had allowed the statements made by his fellow defendants to be read out in court: objection dismissed.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy