SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 44173/98
by Raffaele MUCCIACCIARO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 October 1998 and registered on 2 November 1998,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1951 and living in Solopaca (Benevento). He is represented before the Court by Mr V. La Brocca and Mr S. Rando, two lawyers practising in Benevento.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for tax offences.
In an order of 18 September 1991, the Benevento investigating judge committed the applicant for trial, commencing on 16 December 1991 before the Benevento District Court. On 21 September 1991, this order was served on the applicant, who was thus informed of the charges brought against him.
The first hearing was adjourned because the applicant was ill. On 8 June 1992, at the parties’ request, the District Court, acting in accordance with Article 2 § 3 of Presidential Decree n° 23 of 20 January 1992, decided to suspend the proceedings awaiting the information from the Benevento Revenue (“Ufficio Finanziario delle Imposte dirette”) on the applicant’s integration into the taxpayers’ list. On 29 December 1997, the District Court requested the Benevento Revenue to produce the information at issue. The latter were given on 20 December 1997.
On 22 January 1998, the case was adjourned because on that day the lawyers of the Benevento Bar Association were on strike.
On 16 April 1998, the parties presented their final pleadings. The applicant and the Public Prosecutor requested the District Court to declare that the offences were time-barred.
In a judgment of 16 April 1998, filed with the registry on 23 April 1998, the District Court held that the charges had become time-barred in July 1997.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 21 September 1991, when the applicant was informed of the charges against him, and ended on 23 April 1998 when the District Court’s judgment was filed with the registry. They therefore lasted six years, seven months and two days for one instance.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject this allegation, on the ground that three out of the four hearings held before the Benevento District Court were postponed for reasons regarding the applicant’s personal situation. They furthermore observe that the length is partly due to the delay in the response of the Benevento Revenue. They finally note that the applicant failed to request the District Court to schedule a new hearing and the Benevento Revenue to provide the information needed.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by its case-law on the question of “reasonable time”, and having regard to all the material in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy