DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 40179/98
by Girolamo MANGIOLA
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,
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 November 1997 by Girolamo MANGIOLA against Italy and registered on 10 March 1998 under file No. 40179/98;
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 3 September 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 2 October 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
AS TO THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1947, and currently residing in Condofuri (Reggio Calabria).
He is represented before the Court by Mr Domenico Callea, a lawyer practising in Reggio Calabria.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In an order of 12 July 1991, the Reggio Calabria investigating judge committed the applicant and eleven other persons for trial before the Reggio Calabria District Court on 29 October 1991 on charges of forgery.
Two hearings were held on 29 October 1991 and 20 February 1992. On 21 April 1992, the proceedings were adjourned at one of the accused's request. Two hearings on 9 June and 3 November 1992 were adjourned because some of the witnesses summoned to appear were absent.
On 23 February 1993, the proceedings were adjourned to 11 May 1993 because the chamber of the Court was composed of judges other than those who had been present at the previous hearings.
On 9 November 1993, some witnesses were examined and on 1 March 1994, some of the defence lawyers presented their final pleadings. On 10 May 1994, the proceedings were adjourned in order to enable the defence lawyers to participate in an assembly organised by the Reggio Calabria Bar Association.
A hearing scheduled for 7 July 1994 was postponed at the defendants’ request. On 11 October 1994, the President of the District Court withdrew from the case as he had previously dealt with it as a member of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
On 31 October 1994, the proceedings were adjourned by the District Court of its own motion.
On 25 November 1994, the President of the District Court observed that the chamber of the court was composed of judges other than those who had been present at the previous hearings. He consequently ordered that the notice to appear at trial be served on all the accused and that all the measures previously taken during the trial be renewed. On 29 March 1995, the proceedings were adjourned because the notice to appear had not been served on some of the accused. On 11 July 1995, the applicant requested that his case be dealt with separately from that of his co-accused and promptly. In an order of the same day, the District Court dismissed this request.
Two hearings on 16 November 1995 and 23 January 1996 were adjourned by the District Court of its own motion. After two hearings, held on 14 February and 31 May 1996, on 25 June 1996, some witnesses were examined and on 18 September 1996, the proceedings were adjourned to 29 October 1996 by the District Court of its own motion.
Two hearings scheduled for 10 December 1996 and 22 April 1997 were adjourned because some of the witnesses summoned to appear were absent, while a hearing on 24 January 1997 was postponed because the chamber of the District Court was composed of judges other than those who had been present at the previous hearings.
On 17 June 1997, the proceedings were adjourned to 30 September 1998 because the lawyers of the Reggio Calabria Bar Association were on strike.
On 28 October 1997, a witness was examined, the applicant made spontaneous statements (“dichiarazioni spontanee”) to the court and the parties presented their final pleadings.
In a judgment of 28 October 1997, the District Court acquitted the applicant.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings and invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
On 21 May 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights 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 3 September 1998, to which the applicant replied on 2 October 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.
AS TO THE LAW
The applicant's complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 12 July 1991, when the Reggio Calabria investigating judge committed the applicant for trial and ended on 28 October 1997, when the Reggio Calabria District Court gave its final judgment.
The Government consider that, having regard to the complexity of the case, the length of the investigations cannot be seen as unreasonable and observe that the delay in fixing the date of the trial hearing was due to the workload of the Reggio Calabria District Court.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings - a period of six years, three months and sixteen days - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He considers that the case was not complex and recalls that the workload of a domestic court cannot absolve a Government from complying with the substantive provisions of the Convention.
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 THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy