SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 37752/97
by Licio GELLI[Note1]
against Italy[Note2]
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 15 December 1998 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Fischbach, President,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka, 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 14 July 1997 by Licio GELLI [Note3] against Italy and registered on 11 September 1997 under file No. 37752/97;
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 3 September 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 20 October 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian citizen currently residing in Santa Maria delle Grazie, Arezzo.
Before the Court he is represented by Mr Michele Gentiloni Silverj, a lawyer practising in Rome.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.
In 1981 the Investigative Office attached to the Milan District Court in the course of investigations concerning the bankruptcy of a private bank seized certain material relating to the Masonic lodge called “Propaganda 2 - P2”.
The applicant was suspected inter alia of association aiming at political conspiracy, seeking and obtaining classified information, false pretences, espionage, fraud, aggravated slander and extortion, forgery in public deeds.
The investigations concerned 40 co-accused and 17 charges.
On 20 January 1982 a warrant of arrest was issued against the applicant for aggravated slander. The applicant resided in Switzerland.
On 2 September 1982 the Italian authorities requested the Swiss authorities to extradite the applicant to Italy in connection with the charge of aggravated slander.
On 5 July 1983 the Italian authorities further requested the Swiss authorities to extradite the applicant in order to try him for false pretences.
On 19 August 1983 the Swiss Federal Court granted the request of the Italian authorities for the applicant's extradition.
The question of the territorial competence to decide the case was brought before the Rome Court of Appeal, which by judgement of 26 March 1985 ruled that the Rome District Court was competent.
By a judgement of 18 November 1991, filed with the Registry on 19 November 1991, the Investigating Judge attached to the Rome District Court inter alia committed thirteen co-accused for trial on a charge of political conspiracy, and the applicant on charges of false pretences, corruption, aggravated slander and seeking and obtaining classified information. He ruled that the other charges against the applicant be dropped by application of an amnesty. The judgement consisted of 269 pages.
On 16 April 1994 the Assize Court of Rome found the applicant guilty of false pretences, aggravated slander and seeking and obtaining classified information and sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment, of which five years and the payment of the fine were pardoned. The judgement consisted of 1, 813 pages.
On 30 April 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal against the said judgement with the Rome Assize Court of Appeal. The Public Prosecutor also appealed against it.
Both the Public Prosecutor and the applicant filed the grounds for the appeal with the Registry on 3 October 1994.
The case-file reached the Assize Court of Appeal of Rome on 23 December 1994.
In the preliminary phase, the court ruled that the proceedings against four deceased co-accused be discontinued and dismissed the appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor in respect of certain co-accused including the applicant, on the ground that he had failed to file the grounds for the appeal.
The trial was set for 5 July 1995 but was adjourned until 17 January 1996, as the lawyers were on strike. By a decision of 17 January 1996 the court dismissed the parties’ request to adduce further evidence.
Further hearings were held on 23 January, 13, 15, 20, 22 and 27 March 1996.
By a judgement consisting of 188 pages, delivered on 27 March 1996 and filed with the Registry on 15 May 1996, the Assize Court of Appeal of Rome upheld the previous judgement.
On 28 March and 30 March 1996, the applicant and his counsel respectively lodged an appeal on points of law.
By a judgement of 20 November 1996, the Court of Cassation ruled that the charges of false pretences and slander against the applicant be dropped as time-barred. It confirmed the remainder of the judgement and accordingly reduced the sentence. The judgement was filed with the Registry on 24 December 1996.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1, about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 May 1997 and registered on 11 September 1997.
On 20 May 1998, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.
The Government’s written observations were submitted on 4 September 1998. The applicant replied on 20 October 1998.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the proceedings brought against him were unreasonably long.
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal established by law.”
The Government argue that the proceedings at issue were extremely complex by reason of the number of co-accused, the nature of the charges involved and the subsequent complexity of the investigations. The Government point out that the right of an accused to be tried within a reasonable time must be weighed against the need to establish the truth. The Government maintain that the present proceedings, like those referred to as “maxi-processi”, involved a number of interrelated charges, which demanded to be treated jointly. They underline that the domestic courts were called to examine a massive amount of documents and numerous witnesses and that, nevertheless, no significant delays can be identified which could be imputed to the domestic authorities.
Accordingly, the Government consider that the length of the proceedings at issue did not infringe Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The applicant contests the Government’s arguments and alleges that the proceedings at issue concerned a simple charge of slander, which did not need to be examined together with all the other complex charges referred to in the Government’s observations. Furthermore, the applicant considers that the point at issue was an exclusively legal one, for which no investigation would have been required. He thus considers that a length of approximately fifteen years is unreasonable.
The Court considers the application raises complex and serious issues under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which require determination on the merits. It follows that it cannot be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghMarc Fischbach
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Please check if public or not. If not, put initials only. Name and, in capital letters, surname ; corporative name in capital letters ; no translation of collective names.
[Note2]First letter in capital letters plus the article according to normal speech.
[Note3]In small letters.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy