DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos. 40282/98 and 40283/98
by Salvatore FERRARA and Mario DE LORENZO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 23 March 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits, 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 applications introduced on 27 February 1998 by Salvatore FERRARA and on 26 February 1998 by Mario DE LORENZO against Italy and registered on 16 March 1998 under files nos. 40282/98 and 40283/98;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 6 November 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 16 January 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are two Italian nationals, born respectively in 1940 and 1950, and currently residing in Benevento. In 1989, the applicants were members of the Benevento Town Council’s Technical Committee (“Commissione tecnica comunale di Benevento”), a body responsible for expressing opinions on the issuing of building permits and on the granting of public allowances.
The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr Silvio Ferrara, a lawyer practising in Benevento.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 October 1992, the Benevento Public Prosecutor Office requested that the applicants and thirteen other persons be committed for trial on charges of aggravated abuse of public authority (“abuso d’ufficio”) and neglect of duties.
On 15 October 1992, the Benevento investigating judge fixed the date of the preliminary hearing at 16 February 1993, date on which the case was adjourned at some of the accused’s request.
A hearing scheduled for 16 March 1993 was postponed by the investigating judge of his own motion until 8 June 1993. This hearing and that of 29 September 1993 did not take place because of two lawyers’ strikes of indefinite duration.
On 23 November 1993, the investigating judge invited the parties to produce a number of documents and postponed the case until 18 January 1994, date on which the Public Prosecutor deposited the documents at issue and the case was adjourned until 8 February 1994 at the accused’s request.
In a judgment of 8 February 1994, the Benevento investigating judge acquitted the second applicant and one of his co-accused with respect to the charge of neglect of duties. In an order of the same day, he committed the applicants and twelve other persons for trial, commencing on 26 January 1995, before the Benevento District Court on charge of abuse of public authority.
On 26 January 1995, and again on 19 October 1995, the proceedings were adjourned at the request of some of the accused's lawyers. On 7 December 1995, some witnesses were heard. A hearing scheduled for 22 April 1996 was postponed, because of political elections, until 21 October 1996. On that date, the District Court, having observed that its bench was composed of judges other than those who had sat at he previous hearings and that the accused refused to have the trial minutes read out, ordered that the whole trial be renewed. The case was adjourned first until 20 January 1997, then until 27 February 1997. This hearing was postponed at the Public Prosecutor's request until 28 April 1997.
On that date, some of the accused and a number of witnesses were heard. A hearing scheduled for 26 May 1997 was first adjourned until 23 June 1997 because of a lawyers’ strike, then postponed by the District Court of its own motion until 10 October 1997, date on which the proceedings were adjourned at the accused’s request.
On 7 November 1997, the District Court, having observed that the bench was composed of judges other than those who had sat at the previous hearings, ordered that the trial minutes be read out. On the same day, the parties presented their final submissions.
In a judgment of 7 November 1997, filed with the court’s registry on 2 December 1997, the District Court acquitted the applicants and all their co-accused. This decision became final on 16 January 1998.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain of the length of the proceedings and invoke Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The applications were introduced respectively on 27 and 26 February 1998 and registered on 16 March 1998.
On 2 July 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to join the applications and to give notice of them to the respondent Government, who were invited to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications.
The Government submitted their observations on 6 November 1998, to which the applicants replied on 16 January 1999.
By virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 November 1998, the applications shall thereafter be examined by the European Court of Human Rights.
THE LAW
The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 15 October 1992, when the Benevento Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the applicants be committed for trial and ended on 16 January 1998, when the Benevento District Court’s judgment became final.
The Government maintain that the proceedings did not exceed the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the complexity of the case, due to the number of accused persons and the nature of the issues involved. They moreover observe that the applicants’ lawyer agreed on a number of adjournments.
According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings – a period of five years and three months – is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement. They observe that the case was not particularly complex and underline that their trial was adjourned on a number of occasions and that the delays between the hearings exceed the ten days time-limit set forth in Article 477 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.
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 applicants’ 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, by a majority >, the Court
DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the cases.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy