23.02.9925/01/199925/01/199934469/97Vincenzo GATTOItaly23
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 34469/97
by Vincenzo GATTO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 23 February 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Judges,
withMr E. 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 20 December 1996 by Vincenzo Gatto against Italy and registered on 13 January 1997 under file no. 34469/97;
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 24 November 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 22 December 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1948 and residing in Modena.
Before the Court, he is represented by Mr Dante Pola, a lawyer practising in Modena.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was arrested on 20 October 1983 pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the Reggio Emilia Public Prosecutor on charges of having received stolen goods.
On 5 November 1983, the applicant was released.
On 24 August 1984, the Reggio Emilia investigating judge declared that he did not have jurisdiction and referred the case to the Milan Public Prosecutor.
On 23 May 1990, the applicant was committed for trial before the Milan District Court together with nine co-accused.
The first hearing was set for 26 June 1995.
By a judgment of 16 July 1996, filed with the Registry on 24 July 1996, the Milan District Court acquitted the applicant.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him. He invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
On 9 September 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to give notice of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings brought against him to the respondent Government and invited them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.
The Government submitted their observations on 24 November 1998, to which the applicant replied on 22 December 1998.
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 20 October 1983, when the applicant was arrested and ended on 24 July 1996, when the Milan District Court’s judgment was filed with the Registry. The applicant alleges that the length of the proceedings - a period of twelve years, nine months and four days - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Government consider that, having regard to the transfer of the investigation to the Milan Public Prosecutor, to the complexity of the case, to the number of the co-accused, to the workload of the judicial authorities and to the entry into force of the criminal procedure code of 1989, the length of the proceedings can not be seen as unreasonable.
The applicant contests the Government’s arguments. He alleges that the investigations were not carried out at a steady rhythm by the investigating authorities. Furthermore he considers that the entry into force of the criminal procedure code of 1989 can not be invoked to justify the delay between 23 May 1990 and 26 June 1995, as the number of pending proceedings in that period was reduced as a result of the amnesty laws of 1990.
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 ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case, the applicant’s complaint relating to the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident[Note1]
[Note1]“President” is also put if the Chamber is not presided over by the Section President (Section Vice-President or other judge according to seniority).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy