SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 39789/98
by Raffaele ERRIGO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 25 May 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Judges,
withMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 26 January 1998 by Raffaele Errigo against Italy and registered on 10 February 1998 under file no. 39789/98;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 26 February 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 11 March 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1944 and residing in Reggio Calabria.
Before the Court, he is represented by Mr Domenico Callea, a lawyer practising in Reggio Calabria.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 October 1990, a criminal complaint for theft of electricity was lodged against the applicant.
By a decision issued on 10 October 1991, the applicant was committed for trial before the Reggio Calabria District Judge on a charge of aggravated theft.
The first hearing was set for 11 March 1992.
On 11 March 1992, the Reggio Calabria District Judge sentenced the applicant to one month imprisonment and to a fine of 200.000 Italian liras.
On 9 April 1992, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Reggio Calabria Court of Appeal.
The hearing was set for 5 January 1998.
On 5 January 1998, the Reggio Calabria Court of Appeal ruled that the proceedings against the applicant be discontinued, the offence being time-barred.
On 8 January 1998 the judgment was filed with the Court's registry.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him. He invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
On 27 October 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and invited them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.
The Government submitted their observations on 26 February 1999, to which the applicant replied on 11 March 1999.
By virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 November 1998, the application shall thereafter be examined by the European Court of Human Rights.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the proceedings brought against him were unreasonably long. These proceedings began on 11 October 1990, when a criminal complaint against the applicants was lodged and ended on 8 January 1998, when the Reggio Calabria Court of appeal’s decision was filed with the registry. The applicant alleges that the length of the proceedings - a period of about seven years and three months - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant alleges that under Italian law no effective remedy exists to obtain a quicker conduct of the proceedings.
The Government consider that, having regard to the excessive workload of the Reggio Calabria Court of appeal, the length of the proceedings can not be seen as unreasonable. Moreover the Government observe that the applicant could have requested a quicker conduct of the proceedings. Furthermore the Government observe that the applicant took advantage of the length of the proceedings insofar as the charge against him became time-barred.
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
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy