Information Note on the Court’s case-law 20
July 2000
Mattoccia v. Italy - 23969/94
Judgment 25.7.2000 [Section I]
Article 6
Article 6-3-a
Information in detail
Lack of specification in rape charge: violation
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of criminal proceedings: violation
(Extract from press release)
Facts: The applicant, Massimiliano Mattoccia, an Italian national, was born in 1964 and lives in Giulianello (Latina, Italy). He used to work as a bus driver for a school for handicapped children in Rome. On 12 June 1990 he was convicted of raping R., a mentally handicapped girl born in 1964 who attended that school. His conviction was upheld by the court of appeal and the Court of Cassation. Both the exact time and place of the rape were repeatedly changed and never established. The applicant complained that his right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (a) and (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights and his right to a hearing within a reasonable time guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been violated.
Law: Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (a) and (b) (fairness of the proceedings) – The Court examined the fairness of the proceedings taken as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken. It recalled that the accused must be made aware “promptly” and “in detail” of the cause of the accusation, i.e. the material facts alleged against him which are the basis of the accusation, and of the nature of the accusation, i.e. the legal qualification of these material facts. While the extent of the “detailed” information referred to in this provision varies depending on the particular circumstances of each case, the accused must at any rate be provided with sufficient information as is necessary to understand fully the extent of the charges against him with a view to preparing an adequate defence. In this respect, the adequacy of the information must be assessed in relation to sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3 of Article 6. The same is true as concerns the changes in the accusation, including the changes in its “cause”. The Court observed that at the preliminary stage the prosecuting authorities did not convey all the available information on the accusation to the applicant, even though the latter appeared to have adopted a line of defence which was manifestly inadequate. More detailed information was contained in the prosecution file, which became accessible to the applicant shortly before 23 October 1986, but to which he only sought access in September 1989. In the Court’s view, however, even though the applicant could have sought access to the prosecution file in due time, this did not dispense the prosecution from complying with the obligation to inform the accused promptly and in detail of the full accusation against him. This duty rests entirely with the prosecuting authorities and cannot be complied with passively by making information available without bringing this to the attention of the defence. Moreover, at the first hearing before the trial court the time and place of the rape were changed; at the second hearing, which was held less than one month later, new elements occurred which prompted the court, in a judgment delivered on the same day, to hold that the rape had been committed on yet another date and that the witnesses in the applicant’s favour were not credible. No allowances were made by the trial court for the difficulties caused to the defence, suddenly confronted with yet another new version of events. It was therefore only possible for the applicant to seek to adduce new evidence on appeal, which he did: he requested the Court of Appeal to hear his employer. The appellate court briefly ruled that the employer’s testimony was superfluous and the Court of Cassation upheld this decision. The Court however disagreed. It could not see how the evidence gathered at trial would be sufficient, given that the “cause” of the accusation had been changed at a stage when the applicant could no longer react to it if not on appeal. In conclusion, although the Court was cognisant that rape trials raise very sensitive and important issues of great concern to society and that cases concerning the very young or the mentally handicapped often confront the prosecuting authorities and the courts with serious evidential difficulties in the course of the proceedings, the present case was exceptional. Taking into account the vagueness of the accusation and the numerous and repeated changes in its cause, and in view of the lengthy period which had elapsed between the committal for trial and the trial (more than three and a half years) compared to the rapidity of the trial (less than one month), fairness required that the applicant should have been afforded greater opportunity and facilities to defend himself in a practical and effective manner, for example by calling witnesses to establish an alibi. The Court concluded that the applicant’s right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence had been violated.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 1 (length of the proceedings) – The Government had conceded that the length of the proceedings brought against the applicant had exceeded a reasonable time. The Court observed that the case was not complex and the applicant had not been responsible of any delays; instead, delays covering more than half of the overall length of the proceedings had occurred, which were attributable to the national authorities. The applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time had therefore been violated.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court, clearly, could not speculate on what the outcome would have been if the applicant had had a fair trial, and therefore rejected the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage. As to the non-pecuniary damage, ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awarded him ITL 27,000,000. It also awarded him ITL 15,000,000, less the amount already paid by way of legal aid, for legal costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy