SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 43584/98
by Raffaele MACCIOCCHI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 15 June 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 application introduced on 18 September 1998 by Raffaele MACCIOCCHI against Italy and registered on 24 September 1998 under file no. 43584/98;
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 19 March 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 28 April 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1933 and currently residing in Campolattaro (Benevento). In 1991, the applicant was a member of the City Council (“Giunta municipale”). He is represented before the Court by two lawyers practising in Benevento, Mr Vincenzo La Brocca and Mr Sergio Rando.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 December 1992 the Benevento Public Prosecutor’s Office commenced criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of forgery and misconduct in the course of his duties as a member of the City Council.
On 8 May 1993 the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the Benevento investigating judge to prolong the maximum period for the duration of the investigations. This request, which had been granted by the investigating judge, was subsequently served on the applicant, who was thus given official notification of the charges brought against him.
On 23 August 1993 the Benevento Public Prosecutor's Office requested that the applicant and seven other persons be committed for trial before the Benevento District Court on charges of abuse of power and forgery.
The preliminary hearing took place on 11 January 1994. In an order issued on the same day, the Benevento investigating judge granted the Public Prosecutor’s request.
The date of the first hearing, scheduled for 9 January 1995, was adjourned by the District Court of its own motion and eventually took place on 27 November 1995, on which date the proceedings were adjourned first to 15 January and then to 18 March 1996 because the committal orders had not been served on some of the accused. The hearing scheduled for 18 March 1996 was adjourned by the District Court because of the elections.
On 18 November 1996, at the request of the applicant and of some of the other accused, the District Court declared that the orders for committal for trial were null and void and ordered that the case-file be returned to the investigating judge.
On 28 April 1997 the District Court adjourned the proceedings to 20 October 1997 at the request of some of the accused. In an order issued on that date, the District Court once again declared that the orders committing the applicant and four of his co-accused for trial were null and void and ordered that their case-files be returned to the investigating judge. As to the other accused persons, the District Court scheduled the date of the subsequent hearing for 2 July 1998.
In a decision of 23 October 1997, the District Court observed that the orders for committal for trial had in fact been renewed by the investigating judge and that the order of 20 October 1997 was due to a clerical error. Consequently, it revoked that order and fixed the date of the hearing for all the accused for 2 March 1998.
On that date the trial was adjourned at the request of some of the accused to 15 June 1998, on which date evidence was taken from some witnesses and the parties presented their final pleadings.
In a judgment given on the same day and filed with the registry on 22 June 1998, the District Court acquitted the applicant and all his co-accused.
COMPLAINT
The applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 September 1998 and registered on 24 September 1998.
By virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 November 1998, the application was thereafter examined by the European Court of Human Rights.
On 15 December 1998, the Court (Second Section) 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 19 March 1999, to which the applicant replied on 28 April 1999.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began in May 1993, when the applicant was given official notification of the charges brought against him and ended on 22 June 1998, when the Benevento District Court’s judgment was filed with the registry.
The Government observe that the case was complex, having regard in particular to the number of accused persons and the nature of the charges. Moreover, the question of the lawfulness of the orders for committal for trial was raised only at a later stage and on a number of occasions the procedure was adjourned in order to allow the accused and their lawyers to be present at the hearings. They consider that the length of the proceedings was influenced by the District Court’s workload and by the elections.
According to the applicant, the overall duration of the proceedings - a period of more than five years - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He considers that his case was not complex and that the reasons advanced by the Government cannot justify the length of the periods in between individual hearings.
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, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy