SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 41041/98
by Ugo MASTROENI
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,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, 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 April 1998 by Ugo Mastroeni against Italy and registered on 29 April 1998 under file no. 41041/98;
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 24 February 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 24 March 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1931 and living in Roccalumera (Messina). He is represented before the Court by Mr Nino Muscolino, a lawyer practising in Messina.
The following is a summary of the proceedings:
On 27 November 1982 the tax division of the Messina police (polizia tributaria) started investigations into the bankruptcy of C.C., with whom the applicant had business relations.
On 13 June 1983 the applicant was interrogated, as a witness, by the Messina police.
On 27 June 1983 the tax division of the Messina police submitted a report to the preliminary investigations office attached to the Messina District Court on the outcome of the investigations.
On 12 March 1985 the tax division of the police carried out a fiscal inspection of the applicant's accounts.
On 22 April 1987 the applicant and two co-suspects were summoned to appear on 8 May 1987 before the judge for preliminary investigations.
On 25 July 1987 the applicant and five co-accused were committed for trial before the Messina District Court. The applicant was charged with fraud.
On 19 April 1994 the applicant and the three remaining co-accused were summoned to appear before the Messina District Court at the hearing set for 6 June 1994.
Twelve further hearings were held on 11 July 1994, 28 November 1994, 14 March 1995, 23 June 1995, 19 October 1995, 1 February 1996, 17 April 1996, 10 October 1996, 16 January 1997, 9 April 1997, 28 May 1997 and 9 July 1997.
The applicant only attended the hearing held on 11 July 1994. He was thereafter considered as "absent" (assente). As of 28 May 1997, he was tried by default (in contumacia).
On 29 October 1997 the Messina District Court ruled that the proceedings against the applicant be discontinued, the offence being time-barred. The decision was served on the applicant on 7 January 1998 and it became final, in his respect, on 22 January 1998.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him before the Messina District Court
PROCEDURE
On 1 December 1998, the Court 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 24 February 1999, to which the applicant replied on 24 March 1999.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings. These proceedings began at the latest on 12 March 1985, when the Messina police carried out an inspection of the applicant’s accounts, and ended on 22 January 1998, when the discontinuance of the proceedings became final.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings – a period of over 12 years and 10 months – is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government refute the allegation.
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
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy