EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 22421/93
Annunziata Palermiti
against
Italy
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 28 February 1996)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1-11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
A. The application
(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
B. The proceedings
(paras. 5-8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
C. The present Report
(paras. 9-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 12-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 17-27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
A. Complaint declared admissible
(para. 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
B. Point at issue
(para. 18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 19-26). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
1. The period to be taken into consideration
(para. 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
(paras. 21-26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
CONCLUSION
(para. 27). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
APPENDIX : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . .6
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the
European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the
Commission.
A. The application
2. The applicant is an Italian citizen, born in 1925 and residing
in Reggio Calabria. She was represented before the Commission by
Mr. Domenico Callea.
3. The application is directed against Italy. The respondent
Government were represented by Mr. Umberto Leanza, Head of the
Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
4. The case concerns a complaint about the length of criminal
proceedings in respect of charges of unauthorized building and unlawful
removal of official seals. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of
the Convention.
B. The proceedings
5. The application was introduced on 18 May 1993 and registered on
5 August 1993.
6. On 28 February 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided,
pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give
notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite
the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and
merits.
7. The Government's observations were submitted on 30 May 1995. The
applicant replied on 16 June 1995.
8. On 6 September 1995 the Commission declared the application
admissible. The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the
application is annexed hereto.
C. The present Report
9. The Commission (First Chamber), having found that there is no
basis on which a friendly settlement pursuant to Article 28 para. 1 (b)
of the Convention can be effected, has drawn up the present report in
pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and
votes, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
10. The text of this Report was adopted on 28 February 1996 by the
Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the
Convention.
11. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the
Convention, is:
(i) to establish the facts, and
(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose
a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under
the Convention.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
12. By act ("ordine di comparizione") of 22 October 1987, notified
on 30 October 1987, the applicant was summoned to appear before the
Public Prosecutor of Reggio Calabria on 16 November 1987, in order to
be interrogated. She was charged with unauthorized building and
unlawful removal of official seals ("violazione di sigilli").
13. These proceedings were connected with a previous set of criminal
proceedings instituted against the applicant on similar charges and
which came to an end by judgment of 8 July 1986 with the applicant's
conviction by the Reggio Calabria magistrate ("Pretore").
14. On 16 November 1987, the applicant was interrogated by the Public
Prosecutor in her counsel's presence.
15. On 1 October 1988, the Public Prosecutor requested that the
applicant be committed for trial on charges of unauthorized building
and unlawful removal of official seals.
16. By judgment of 7 February 1994, the Reggio Calabria Court
dismissed the first charge as time-barred and the second following an
amnesty.
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A. Complaint declared admissible
17. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint
about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against her.
B. Point at issue
18. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings
against the applicant exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
19. The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) 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 (...)."
1. The period to be taken into consideration
20. The period to be taken into consideration began on 30 October
1987, when the applicant was first summoned to appear before the Public
Prosecutor of Reggio Calabria, and ended on 7 February 1994, when the
Reggio Calabria court dismissed the first charge as time-barred and the
second following an amnesty. The period under consideration is
therefore six years, three months and eight days.
2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
21. The Commission recalls that:
"The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings is to be
assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the
case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's
case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the
applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities ..."
(Eur. Court H.R., Kemmache judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A
no. 218, p. 27, para. 60).
22. The Government disclaim any responsibility on the part of the
judicial authorities by invoking the difficult situation faced by the
Reggio Calabria court as a result of the exceptional backlog of cases,
as well as the lack of sufficient staff to deal with such a situation.
23. The applicant submits in this regard that it was for the Italian
authorities to find a solution to the aforementioned problems.
24. The Commission recalls that the Contracting States are under a
duty to organise their legal systems so as to enable the courts to
comply with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1, (Art. 6-1) including
that of a trial within a "reasonable time" (cf. Eur. Court H.R.,
Baggetta judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119-B, p. 32, par. 23).
25. The Commission notes that the Reggio Calabria court took over
five years from the date when the Public Prosecutor requested that the
applicant be committed for trial to deliver its judgment (1 October
1988 to 7 February 1994). The Commission has considered the
submissions of the parties in this respect, and finds that this delay,
which is attributable to the competent authorities, is not convincingly
explained by the Government.
26. In light of the criteria and circumstances of the case described
above, the Commission considers that the length of the proceedings in
this case, being over six years and three months, has not been
justified by the Government. Consequently the Commission finds that
the reasonable time referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention has been exceeded.
CONCLUSION
27. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy