EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 30605/96
Paolo Mongiardo
against
Italy
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 16 April 1998)
30605/96- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1-5)1
II.ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 6-18)2
III.OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 19-30) 3
A.Complaint declared admissible
(para. 19)3
B.Point at issue
(para. 20)3
C.As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 21-29) 3
CONCLUSION
(para. 30)4
APPENDIX:DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION5
I.INTRODUCTION
1.The present Report concerns Application No. 30605/96 introduced on 6 November 1995 against Italy and registered on 25 March 1996.
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1933 and currently residing in Rome. He was represented before the Commission by Bruno Caputo, a lawyer practising in Rome.
The respondent Government were represented by Mr. Umberto Leanza, Head of the Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2.The application was communicated to the respondent Government on 20 January 1997. Following an exchange of written observations, the complaint relating to the length of proceedings (Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) was declared admissible on 4 July 1997; the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The decision on admissibility is appended to this Report.
3.Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (First Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 16 April 1998 in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the following members being present:
MMM.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
MrsJ. LIDDY
MML. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIĆ
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
MrsM. HION
MrR. NICOLINI
4. In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Italy.
5. The text of this Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.
II.ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
6.On 29 March 1988 the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant on charges of belonging to a mafia-type association, drug trafficking, trafficking works of art and counterfeiting.
7.The applicant was arrested on 31 March 1988, and was kept in isolation for five months in Rome; he was later under house arrest until he was released on 3 July 1989, the time-limit for detention on remand having expired.
8.On 14 April and 4 May 1988 the applicant was interrogated by the Public Prosecutor.
9. On 25 May 1988 the applicant was interrogated by the Investigating Judge.
10.On 22 June 1988 the Rome Investigating Judge declared the territorial incompetence of the Court of Rome and sent the file to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Reggio Calabria.
11.On 12 July 1989 the applicant was committed for trial before the Reggio Calabria Court.
12. On 24 July 1990 the latter declared its territorial incompetence and sent the case to the Milan Court.
13.Four hearings were held before the Milan Court on 27 November, 5, 6 and 10 December 1990.
14.On 10 December 1990, the Milan Court declared its territorial incompetence and sent the case before the Udine Court.
15.On 4 June 1991 the Udine Court sent the case before the Court of Cassation seeking that the question of the territorial competence be decided.
16.By a judgment delivered on 5 November and filed with the Registry on 25 November 1991, the Court of Cassation held that the Milan Court was competent to deal with the case. The case was therefore sent back before the Milan Court on 7 February 1992.
17.Despite the requests lodged by the applicant on 15 December 1994 to the Presiding judge of the Milan Court, the Presiding judge of the Milan Court of Appeal and the Public Prosecutor and on 16 March 1995 to the Presiding judge of the Milan Court, the first hearing was only fixed to 29 January 1997. It was eventually postponed to 13 October 1997.
18. These proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Milan.
III.OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A.Complaint declared admissible
19.The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him and currently pending before the Milan Court.
B.Point at issue
20. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings complained of exceeds the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
C.As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
21.The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
"In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ..."
22.The proceedings in question concern the determination of the charges of belonging to mafia-type association, drug trafficking, trafficking works of art and counterfeiting brought against the applicant. The proceedings accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
23. These proceedings, which began on 31 March 1988 with the applicant's arrest (cf. Eur. Court HR, Wemhoff v. Germany judgment 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 26, para. 19) and are currently pending before the Milan Court, have lasted approximately ten years to date.
24. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court HR, Kemmache v. France judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 218, p. 27, para. 60).
25.According to the Government, the length of the proceedings in question is due to the extreme complexity of the case, which is in turn due to the number of coaccused and to the number and nature of charges against them, as well as to the workload of the domestic courts involved. The applicant objects.
26.The Commission shares the Government's view that the case is rather complex. However the Commission considers that the complexity of the case is not of itself sufficient to justify a length of over ten years.
27.The Commission notes a delay of about four years between the applicant's arrest and the final decision as to the territorial competence to decide the applicant's case, and a further delay of almost six years between the referral of the case before the competent Court on 2 February 1992 and the first hearing before that Court on 13 October 1997.
28.The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems so as to enable the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1, including that of a trial within a "reasonable time" (cf. Eur. Court HR, Baggetta v. Italy judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119-B, p. 32, para. 23).
29.In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that the length of the proceeding at issue, being over ten years to date for one degree of jurisdiction, is excessive and fails to meet the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
CONCLUSION
30.The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Secretary President
to the First Chamberof the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy