SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 41892/98
by M.R.
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 11 May 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 19 May 1998 by M.R. against Italy and registered on 25 June 1998 under file no. 41892/98;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1936 and living in Bucciano, (Benevento). He is represented before the Court by Mr Francesco Nazzaro, a lawyer practising in Benevento.
The following is a summary of the proceedings:
On 7 October 1991 P.A. filed a criminal complaint (denuncia-querela) against the Bucciano Town Council Administration.
On an unspecified date investigations were started by the preliminary investigations' office attached to the Benevento District Court.
By an act issued on 20 September 1994, the applicant and 19 co-accused were committed for trial before the Benevento District Court on a charge of abuse of public authority (abuso d'ufficio).
This act was served on the applicant on an unspecified date in October 1994.
The first hearing was set for 18 May 1995. This hearing could not be held as members of the National Bar were on strike until 27 May 1995. The hearing was thus fixed for 11 April 1996.
At the hearing of 11 April 1996, the defence lawyers challenged the regularity of the act by which the applicant and his co-accused had been committed for trial. The court ordered that the committal for trial be renewed. The proceedings were adjourned until 12 December 1996.
This hearing was postponed to 14 April 1997 on account of the legitimate impediment (legittimo impedimento) of one of the accused and of certain defence lawyers.
On 14 April 1997 the court realised that it had previously failed to declare that six accused were absent (contumaci) and ordered that they be informed of the date of the following hearing and that the witnesses be summoned to appear before the court. The court asked the other accused whether they would prefer that the proceedings concerning these six accused be severed, but in the light of the negative opinion of the Public Prosecutor and in the absence of a reaction of the other accused, it adjourned the proceedings until 20 October 1997.
At this hearing, the court noted that one accused had had no knowledge of the proceedings, although he had been formally summoned, and asked the other accused whether they would prefer that the proceedings concerning this accused be severed. Upon the objection of the Public Prosecutor and of the other accused, the court ordered that the witnesses be summoned to appear before it at the hearing of 15 January 1998.
On the latter date the Benevento District Court acquitted the applicant and all his co-accused, the relevant facts having not been established (il fatto non sussiste).
On 29 January 1998 the judgment was filed with the court's registry. The judgment became final on 30 March 1998.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
PROCEDURE
On 22 October 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.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
The Government submitted their observations on 20 January 1999, to which the applicant replied on 4 March 1999.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on an unspecified date in October 1994 and ended on 30 March 1998.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings – a period of approximately three years and a half – 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