DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications No. 40293/98 and 40295/98
introduced by Vincenzo LA BROCCA, Mario BACCARI,
Gaetano DEL VECCHIO and Antonio TINESSA
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 26 January 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Judges,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits, Substitute 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 16 March 1998 by Vincenzo LA BROCCA, Mario BACCARI, Gaetano DEL VECCHIO and Antonio TINESSA against Italy and registered on 17 March 1998 under files no. 40293/98 and 40295/98;
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 28 October 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 21 December 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are four Italian nationals, currently residing in Benevento. The first applicant was born in 1949, the second and the third in 1945, while the fourth applicant was born in 1936. Between 1990 and 1992, the applicants were members of the Benevento City Council (“Giunta municipale di Benevento”).
The first applicant is represented by Mr Giovanni Romano, a lawyer practising in Benevento, while the other applicants are represented by the first applicant, who is himself a lawyer.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 January 1993, the Benevento Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the applicants and ten other persons be committed for trial on charges of aggravated abuse of official authority (“abuso d’ufficio”).
By an act filed with the Registry on 12 January 1993, the Benevento investigating judge scheduled the date of the preliminary hearing for 13 April 1993.
The applicants were given official notification of the charges brought against them on 14 January 1993, when they were served notice of the request for their committal for trial and of the date of the preliminary hearing.
The preliminary hearing was adjourned until 5 May 1993 at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and by reason that the competent Public Prosecutor was on holiday.
This hearing was adjourned first until 16 June 1993, then until 13 October 1993 and subsequently 1 December 1993 by reason of a lawyers’ strike of indefinite duration.
On 1 December 1993, the investigating judge adjourned the proceedings until 11 March 1994 at the Public Prosecutor’s request.
On that date, the judge joined the proceedings to another set of proceedings pending before the same jurisdiction. The date of the hearing was scheduled for 12 April 1994.
In a judgment delivered the same day, and filed with the registry on 7 May 1994, the Benevento investigating judge acquitted the applicants and some of their co-accused in respect of some of the charges. In a separate order, he committed the applicants and ten other persons for trial, commencing on 17 November 1994 before the Benevento District Court, in respect of the remainder of the charges brought against them.
On 26 October 1994, the Public Prosecutor requested that the date of the hearing be postponed, so that the case could be examined at the same time as another set of proceedings instituted against another co-accused. On 31 October 1994, the President of the District Court granted this request and adjourned the proceedings until 15 June 1995.
The Benevento lawyers being on strike until 24 June 1995, this hearing was adjourned to 9 October 1995. It was subsequently postponed at the request of the parties to 21 March 1996 and then adjourned to 14 November 1996 because of the elections of 21 April 1996.
On 14 November 1996, the proceedings were adjourned to 17 February 1997 by reason of the need to renew a notification and of the legitimate impediment of one counsel.
On that occasion, one of the judges of the chamber of the District Court withdrew from the case. The proceedings were therefore adjourned until 13 March 1997, date on which the District Court declared that the order committing the accused for trial was null and void and ordered that the case-file be returned to the investigating judge.
On 25 March 1997, the investigating judge fixed the date of a new preliminary hearing at 18 June 1997; however, this hearing was postponed until 17 September 1997 because the lawyers of the Benevento Bar association were on strike.
The hearing of 17 September 1997 was adjourned until 24 September 1997 at the parties’ request.
In a judgment of the same day, filed with the court’s registry on 30 September 1997, the investigating judge decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicants. This decision became final on 15 October 1997.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain of the length of the proceedings and invoke Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
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 28 October 1998, to which the applicants replied on 21 December 1998.
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 14 January 1993, when the applicants were given official notification of the charges brought against them and ended on 15 October 1997, when the decision to discontinue the proceedings against the applicants 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 co-accused and the number and nature of the issues involved.
According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings - a period of four years and nine months - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement. They observe that the preliminary investigations were concluded in 1992, that the case was not complex and that no delay was attributable to their conduct. The applicants underline in particular 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, the Court
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghCristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy