EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 29881/96
Monica Puccio
against
Italy
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 16 April 1998)
29881/96- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1 - 5)1
II.ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 6 - 14) 2
III.OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 15 - 26)3
A.Complaint declared admissible
(para. 15)3
B.Point at issue
(para. 16)3
C.As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 17 - 25)3
CONCLUSION
(para. 26)4
APPENDIX:DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 5
I.INTRODUCTION
1.The present Report concerns Application No. 29881/96 introduced on 26 September 1995 against Italy and registered on 22 January 1996.
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1958 and currently residing in Florence.
The respondent Government were represented by Mr. Umberto Leanza, Head of the Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2.The application was communicated to the respondent Government on 26 February 1997. Following an exchange of written observations, the complaint relating to the length of proceedings (Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) was declared admissible on 3 December 1997; the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The decision on admissibility is appended to this Report.
3.Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (First Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 16 April 1998 in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the following members being present:
MMM.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
MrsJ. LIDDY
MML. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIĆ
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
MrsM. HION
MrR. NICOLINI
4.In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Italy.
5.The text of this Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.
II.ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
6.The applicant was an employee of company X.
7.In June 1988 preliminary investigations concerning the alleged fraudulent conduct of the persons managing the company were opened by the Florence Public Prosecutor.
8.On 30 July 1991 the Public Prosecutor requested that the applicant and twelve co-accused be committed for trial.
9.On 2 August 1991 the applicant read in "La Nazione", a national daily newspaper, that following the opening of a second set of preliminary investigations against the managing directors of company X as well as against several of its employees, the Public Prosecutor had requested that she and twelve co-accused be committed for trial.
10.On 5 March 1992 the applicant was committed for trial before the Florence court together with three co-accused on charges of fraud and of belonging to a criminal association.
11.On 27 March 1993 the Presiding judge of the Florence court fixed the hearing for 19 January 1994; however, this decision was never served on the applicant and two coaccused who therefore did not appear at the hearing. The proceedings were thus adjourned until 28 June 1994.
12.However, on this date the trial was again postponed to 21 September 1995 on grounds of lack of personnel in the court and of the need to conduct other trials of exceptional importance.
13.By a judgment delivered on 21 September 1995 and filed with the Registry on 16 October 1995, the Court of Florence acquitted the applicant. The Court held that the acquittal of three of the applicant's coaccused - allegedly the organizers of the fraud of which the applicant was accused - by the Florence Court on 8 November 1993 following the proceedings instituted against them for the same facts and on the same charges as in the proceedings at issue clearly also demonstrated the applicant's innocence.
14.The judgment became final on 5 December 1995.
III.OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A.Complaint declared admissible
15.The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against her.
B.Point at issue
16.The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
C.As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
17.The relevant part of Article 6 para. 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 ..."
18.The proceedings in question concerned the determination of the charges of fraud and of belonging to a criminal association brought against the applicant. The proceedings accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
19. These proceedings, which began at the latest on 2 August 1991 when the applicant read in the newspaper that she was the object of preliminary investigations, and ended when the applicant's acquittal became final on 16 October 1995, lasted approximately four years and four months for one degree of jurisdiction.
20. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court HR, Kemmache v. France judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 218, p. 27, para. 60).
21.According to the Government, the length of the proceedings in question is due to the procedural complexity of the case, to the number of co-accused and to the number of charges against them. The applicant objects.
22.The Commission does not consider that the present case was particularly complex. The Commission further notes a delay of over 3 years and 6 months between the applicant's committal for trial on 5 March 1992 and the first hearing on 21 September 1995, when the applicant was acquitted.
23.The Commission has considered the submissions of the parties in this respect, and finds that this delay of about 3 years and 6 months, which is attributable to the authorities, is not convincingly explained by the Government.
24.The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems so as to enable the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1, including that of a trial within a "reasonable time" (cf. Eur. Court HR, Baggetta v. Italy judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119-B, p. 32, para. 23).
25.In the light of the criteria and circumstances of the case described above, the Commission considers that the overall length of the proceedings in this case, being approximately four years and four months, has not been justified by the Government. Consequently the Commission finds that the reasonable time referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention has been exceeded.
CONCLUSION
26.The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy