AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 20608/92
by Lino DeBONO
against Malta
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 2 December 1992, the following members being present:
MM. J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber
E. BUSUTTIL
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 3 August 1992 by
Lino DeBono against Malta and registered on 11 September 1992 under
file No. 20608/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Maltese citizen born in 1943 and resident in
Gozo. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as
follows.
In a judgment dated 17 November 1988 in criminal proceedings
against X., the magistrate Dr. M. referred impliedly to the applicant
as having committed a criminal offence:
"D. was a victim of a very serious offence committed by more than
10 persons in a public office, namely the Office of the Public Works
Department, in which offence partook two persons who are People's
Deputies who subsequently lodged a false report with the Police".
The applicant alleged that it was well-known that he was one of
the Deputies referred to. He had never been charged or prosecuted with
regard to the offence referred to. The magistrate's reference was
reported in the newspapers.
The applicant instituted libel proceedings against the
newspapers, who pleaded that they were reporting court proceedings
which attracted privilege.
The applicant then filed an application in the Civil Court (First
Hall) claiming a remedy in that he had a right to protect his
reputation and that the magistrate had violated this right.
The Civil Court held on 4 October 1989 that the magistrate was
not actionable, a judge being protected by absolute privilege for
anything said or done by him in the exercise of his functions.
The applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court which on
19 February 1990 upheld the decision of the Civil Court, basing itself
on the principle that the independence and impartiality of the
judiciary would be annihilated if judges were liable to be sued in
respect of their functions.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of violation of Article 6 paras. 1, 2,
3(c) and (d) of the Convention in that a magistrate declared him guilty
of an offence in criminal proceedings in which he was not a party and
could not, inter alia, defend himself or examine witnesses on his
behalf.
The applicant claims that he has no remedy in respect of his
complaints contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that a magistrate declared him guilty of
an offence in criminal proceedings to which he was not a party. He
invokes Article 6 paras. 1, 2, 3 (c) and (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-2, 6-3-c,
6-3-d) and Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.
The Commission recalls that the applicant first wrote to the
Commission on 2 May 1990. No reply was received to the Secretariat's
request for copies of court decisions. The applicant did not write
again until 3 August 1992.
The Commission has therefore examined the question of the date
of introduction of the present application for the purposes of
calculating the running of the six-month period under Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention.
In accordance with its established practice, the Commission
considers the date of the introduction of an application to be the date
of the first letter indicating an intention to lodge an application and
giving some indication of the nature of the complaint. However, where
a substantial interval follows before an applicant submits further
information as to his proposed application, the Commission examines the
particular circumstances of the case in order to decide what date shall
be regarded as the date of introduction with a view to calculating the
running of the six-month period set out in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention (see e.g. No. 4429/70, Dec. 1.2.71, Collection 37 p. 109).
The Commission has regard in this context to the purpose of the
six-month rule which is to promote security of the law, to ensure that
cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a
reasonable time and to protect the authorities and other persons
concerned from being under uncertainty for a prolonged period of time.
The Commission's case-law also establishes that it would be
contrary to the spirit and the aim of the six-month rule set out in
Article 26 (Art. 26) if, by any initial communication, an application
could set into motion the proceedings under the Convention and then
remain inactive for an unexplained and unlimited length of time (see
e.g. No. 10626/83, Dec. 7.5.85, D.R. 42 p. 205). The Commission has
therefore rejected applications where an applicant submitted an
application more than six months after the date of the final decision
when there were no special circumstances suspending the running of this
period. It would be inconsistent with the aim and purpose of the six-
month rule to deviate from this rule in a situation where an
application has been introduced under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the
Convention within six months from the final decision, or act complained
of, but thereafter not pursued.
In the present case the Commission recalls that over two years
had passed before the applicant resumed correspondence with the
Commission in spite of the Secretariat's request for copies of the
relevant court decisions. The applicant has given no explanation for
this delay.
In light of these circumstances, notwithstanding the applicant's
initial communication of 2 May 1990, the Commission considers the date
of introduction of the application to be 3 August 1992. Since the
final decision concerning the applicant's complaints was the decision
of the Constitutional Court dated 19 February 1990, it follows that the
application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under
Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber a.i. President of the First Chamber
(M. de SALVIA) (J.A. FROWEIN)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy