Information Note on the Court’s case-law 44
July 2002
Montera v. Italy (dec.) - 64713/01
Decision 9.7.2002 [Section I]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Proceedings before a parliamentary committee: Article 6 inapplicable
Civil rights and obligations
Proceedings before a parliamentary commission: Article 6 inapplicable
Article 6-2
Presumption of innocence
Reference to applicant in parliamentary committee report on the fight against the mafia: inadmissible
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Disclosure of a parliamentary committee report relating to the applicant’s private and professional life: inadmissible
Disciplinary proceedings were brought against the applicant while he was employed as a judge at the Court of Cassation. In the absence of any violation of the rules of professional conduct, the proceedings were terminated. In July 2000, a parliamentary committee set up to investigate the mafia and other similar criminal organisations approved by a majority a progress report on the fight against organised crime in Calabria. Pages 80 to 90 of this report contain references to the applicant, and particularly his connections with a certain X, a member of a criminal organisation based in Calabria. The parliamentary committee pointed out that these connections had been the subject of criminal and disciplinary proceedings, which had ended with the applicant’s acquittal. It decided to publish as a footnote a letter in which the applicant set out his defence arguments. The parliamentary committee’s report was subsequently made public and was discussed in newspaper articles and on certain television programmes. Copies of the report were sent to many public institutions, local authorities and judicial offices. In July and August 2000, two newspaper articles referred specifically to the applicant. He had a letter published in reply to one of the articles and, in October of that year, submitted a memorial challenging statements about him contained in the parliamentary report, after he had unsuccessfully requested a hearing.
Inadmissible under Article 6: The focus of the parliamentary inquiry had been the mafia phenomenon. The parliamentary committee had not been given the task of deciding whether the applicant had committed an offence or imposing formal sanctions against him. Its role had been confined to examining the mafia phenomenon from the point of view of its legal implications. In this kind of issue, which was of general and genuinely public interest, there was nothing to suggest that the proceedings of the parliamentary committee had in any way constituted a disguised form of criminal prosecution. Since the parliamentary committee had not given an opinion on the applicant’s criminal, disciplinary or administrative liability, there was no offence whose nature required consideration. There was no question of any decision on a “criminal charge” against the applicant or on his civil rights and obligations: incompatible ratione materiae.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 2: Although the applicant had not been “charged with a criminal offence” in the proceedings before the parliamentary committee, consideration should be given to whether the committee’s report reflected the belief that the applicant was guilty. At the very most, some passages could be interpreted as describing a state of suspicion, but contained no finding of guilt: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 8: The publication of the report, some passages in which concerned the applicant’s private life and professional conduct, was regarded as “interference”. Such interference was in accordance with the law and pursued legitimate aims within the meaning of the convention. Regarding its necessity in a democratic society, the facts concerning the applicant which were mentioned in the report had not been presented in a way that was arbitrary or manifestly at variance with reality. Circumstances that were favourable to the applicant had been mentioned in an objective way. Lastly, the report included a letter by the applicant in which he was able to give his own version of the facts. Accordingly, there were no grounds for taking the view that, by publishing its report, the parliamentary committee had exceeded its margin of appreciation or that the interference was disproportionate: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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