DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33455/96
by Elmo SCARUFFI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 16 March 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits, Judges,
withMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 26 June 1996 by Elmo SCARUFFI against Italy and registered on 16 October 1996 under file no. 33455/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 12 January 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 3 February 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national born in 1956 and currently residing in Ligonchio (Reggio Emilia).
He is represented before the Court by Mr Marco Della Luna, a lawyer practising in Mantua.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1990, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and his wife, Mrs G., by the Reggio Emilia Public Prosecutor's Office on charges of having received stolen cheques, fraud and forgery.
In an order of 17 February 1992, the Reggio Emilia Public Prosecutor committed the applicant and Mrs G. for trial, commencing on 15 April 1992, before the Reggio Emilia Magistrate.
On 24 June 1992, the Reggio Emilia Magistrate ordered that the case-file be transmitted to the Busto Arsizio Public Prosecutor's Office for reasons of competence ratione loci.
In July 1992, the Busto Arsizio Public Prosecutor’s Office received the applicant’s case-file and on 7 July 1992 it commenced criminal proceedings against him and Mrs G.
On 18 October 1994, the Busto Arsizio Public Prosecutor summoned the applicant to appear on 28 November 1994 in order to be questioned about the charges against him. On that date, the applicant was called upon to identify one Mr T. as being the person who gave him the stolen cheques. On unspecified dates, Mr T. and two other persons were questioned by the Public Prosecutor.
On 27 April 1995, the Busto Arsizio Public Prosecutor requested that the applicant be personally confronted with Mr T. On an unspecified date, the investigating judge summoned the applicant to appear at a private hearing on 17 May 1995. However, this hearing was adjourned first until 7 June, then until 5 July 1995 because of two lawyers’ strikes.
On 5 July 1995, the proceedings were postponed at the applicant’s request until 17 July 1995, date on which the case was adjourned until 3 October 1995 because of another lawyers’ strike.
This hearing did not take place because the applicant, alleging that he was ill, failed to appear. As a consequence, the Public Prosecutor abandoned his claim for personal confrontation.
In an order of 7 November 1995, the investigating judge, at the Public Prosecutor’s request, declared that there was no case to answer against Mrs G.
On 15 November 1995, the Busto Arsizio Public Prosecutor committed the applicant, Mr T. and two other persons for trial before the Gallarate Magistrate on charges of having received stolen cheques, fraud and forgery.
The date of the first hearing, scheduled for 21 June 1996, was adjourned at the applicant’s request until 18 October 1996. On that date and on 10 February 1997, certain witnesses were heard.
In a judgment of 10 February 1997, filed with the court’s registry on 13 February 1997, the Gallarate Magistrate acquitted the applicant on the charge of forgery, convicted him for having received stolen cheques and for fraud and sentenced him to one year and six months' imprisonment and to a fine of 2,000,000 lire. The penalty imposed on the applicant was suspended and all his co-accused were acquitted.
On 30 May 1997, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Milan Court of Appeal. In an order of 17 September 1997, the Court of Appeal declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible.
On an unspecified date, the applicant appealed on points of law. In a judgment of 12 March 1998, the Court of cassation confirmed the lower court’s decision.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings and invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 26 June 1996 and registered on 16 October 1996.
On 10 September 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government, and invited them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.
The Government submitted their observations on 12 January 1999, after an extension of the time-limit. The applicant replied on 3 February 1999.
By virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 November 1998, the application shall thereafter be examined by the European Court of Human Rights.
THE LAW
The applicant's complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began at the latest on 17 February 1992, when the Reggio Emilia Public Prosecutor committed the applicant for trial and ended on 12 March 1998, when the Court of cassation gave its final judgment.
The Government consider that, having regard to the complexity of the investigations, the transfer of the case and the conduct of the applicant, the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be seen as unreasonable.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings – a period of six years and twenty-four days – is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He points out that there was a long period of stand-still during the investigations.
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
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy