Information Note on the Court’s case-law 42
May 2002
Nuvoli v. Italy - 41424/98
Judgment 16.5.2002 [Section I]
Article 13
Effective remedy
Absence of effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of criminal proceedings: violation
Facts: In February 1994, a cheque which the applicant intended to cash at a bank was seized by the fraud squad. In December 1994, on suspicion of having, with another 27 persons, set up a criminal association, the applicant was arrested by the police. The public prosecutor’s office requested his committal for trial in November 1995. In May 1996, the preliminary investigating judge allowed the applicant’s request for his proceedings to be separated from those of his 27 co-defendants. The hearing was automatically postponed on numerous occasions. In December 1996, an order was made for an expert report on the disputed banking instrument. Eleven hearings took place between October 1998 and October 1999, after which the applicant was acquitted by a judgment, the text of which was deposited with the registry in January 2000.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – The beginning of the proceedings to be examined is the date from which the applicant suffered significant effects on his situation, namely the date of the seizure of the cheque which he wished to cash at the bank in February 1994. The proceedings concluded when the judgment was deposited with the registry, in January 2000. They thus lasted for five years and over ten months before a single instance. And a delay of approximately three years and four months in total is imputable to the government.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 – In pursuance of Article 32 of the Convention, the Court decides on any dispute relating to its jurisdiction. Bearing sole responsibility for the application of the law to the facts of the case, the Court is not bound by the application called for by applicants or by governments. Within the limits of the framework laid down by the decision on the admissibility of an application, the Court may deal with any question of fact or of law arising during the proceedings before it. In the instant case, when the application was communicated, the government had been invited to submit observations about the complaints based on Articles 6 § 1 and 13; in its observations in reply, the government put forward legal arguments relating to these two articles, and then the Court declared the application admissible in its entirety, not dismissing any of the complaints. Thus, although the text of the decision mentioned only the application based on Article 6 § 1, the decision on admissibility also covered the complaint based on Article 13, so there was cause to examine this. In this respect, the applicant did have a defensible complaint based on Article 6 § 1. In Italian law, the faculty of requesting the president of the court, who has a large measure of discretion and is under no obligation to give reasons for any decision to turn such a request down (a decision against which no appeal lies), to bring forward the date of the hearing, does not constitute an effective remedy. Furthermore, before the Pinto Law came into force, there was no effective remedy making it possible to complain about length of proceedings. But the Pinto Law is not applicable here, for the decision on the admissibility of the application predates the entry into force of the law. Thus the applicant had no remedy in Italian law enabling him to avail himself of his right to have his case heard “within a reasonable time”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant € 9 000 for non-pecuniary damage.
© 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