SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 45264/99
by Tommaso PALUMBO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 21 October 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to the application introduced on 11 September 1998 and registered on 8 January 1999;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1970 and currently residing in Benevento. He is represented before the Court by Mr Antonio Nardone, a lawyer practising in Benevento.
On 1 April 1992, the applicant, charged with sale of drugs (“detenzione di sostanze stupefacienti a fine di spaccio”), was arrested in Benevento. On 3 April 1992, the Benevento investigating judge ordered that the applicant be released.
In an order of 17 November 1992, the Benevento investigating judge committed the applicant and Mr M. for trial, commencing on 24 June 1993, before the Benevento District Court.
The hearing of 24 June 1993 was postponed, because of a lawyers' strike of indefinite duration, until 2 June 1994, date on which one witness was heard. On 27 April 1995, the case was adjourned to 21 March 1996 because the lawyers of the Benevento Bar Association were on strike until 6 May 1995. However, by reason of the political elections of 21 March 1996, no hearing took place until 28 November 1996, date on which the proceedings concerning the applicant were separated from those concerning Mr M. and adjourned because the witnesses summoned to appear were absent. On 2 June 1997, the District Court ordered that a fresh summons be served on the applicant. The proceedings were adjourned until 9 February 1998, date on which two witnesses and the applicant were heard and the parties presented their final pleadings.
In a judgment of 9 February 1998, filed with the court's registry on 13 February 1998, the Benevento District Court acquitted the applicant. This decision became final on 27 March 1998.
THE LAW
The applicant's complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 1 April 1992 and ended on 27 March 1998.
According to the applicant, the overall duration of the proceedings - a period of almost six years - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government disputed this claim.
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
Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy