SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 41327/98Application no. 41328/98
by Domenico SILVESTRIby Maria CIFARIELLO
against Italyagainst Italy
Application no. 41329/98Application no. 41560/98
by Angela Maria SANNINOCostantino RUOCCO and
against Italy Nicoletta COZZOLINO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 4 May 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Fischbach, President,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka, 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 21 April 1998 by Domenico Silvestri against Italy and registered on 20 May 1998 under file no. 41327/98;
Having regard to the application introduced on 21 April 1998 by Maria Cifariello against Italy and registered on 20 May 1998 under file no. 41328/98;
Having regard to the application introduced on 20 April 1998 by Angela Maria Sannino against Italy and registered on 20 May 1998 under file no. 41328/98;
Having regard to the application introduced on 24 April 1998 by Costantino Ruocco and Nicoletta Cozzolino against Italy and registered on 9 June 1998 under file no. 41560/98;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in respect of the first applicant on 1 February 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 12 March 1999;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in respect of the second applicant on 8 February 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 22 March 1999;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in respect of the third applicant on 20 January 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 24 February 1999;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in respect of the fourth and fifth applicants on 12 January 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 25 February 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is an Italian national, born in 1954 and living in Naples. He is represented before the Court by Mr Maurizio Toscano, a lawyer practising in Naples.
The second applicant is an Italian national, born in 1954 and living in Ercolano (Naples). She is represented before the Court by Mr Giancarlo Biancardi, a lawyer practising in Nola (Naples).
The third applicant is an Italian national, born in 1955 and living in Palma Campania. Before the Court, she is represented by M. Gennaro Malinconico, a lawyer practising in Torre del Greco.
The fourth applicant is an Italian national, born in 1954 and living in Fontanarosa (Avellino). He is represented before the Court by Ms Patrizia Kivel Mazuy, a lawyer practising in Naples.
The fifth applicant is an Italian national, born in 1952 and living in San Gennaro Vesuviano (Naples). She is represented before the Court by Mr Annibale Frizzato, a lawyer practising in Naples.
The following is a summary of the proceedings:
On 7 July 1983 A.M. filed a criminal complaint against the applicants, following which, on an unspecified date in 1984, investigations were opened by the investigations' office attached to the Naples District Court. The investigation concerned 124 persons.
By an act issued on 5 November 1985 the investigating judge attached to the Naples District Court informed the first and the third applicant that investigations were opened against him under suspicion of forgery of public deeds ("falso ideologico in atto pubblico") and invited him to appoint a defence lawyer.
The second, fourth and fifth applicants were informed of the opening of investigations against them on an unspecified date in 1985.
On 14 June 1986 the first applicant was summoned to appear before the investigations' office attached to the Naples District Court on 8 July 1986 in order to be interrogated.
The second, third, fourth and fifth applicants were interrogated on an unspecified date in 1986.
On 14 March 1988 the applicants and 223 co-accused were committed for trial before the Naples District Court. The applicants were charged with material forgery of public deeds ("falso materiale in atto pubblico") and forgery of public deeds ("falso ideologico in atto pubblico"), an offence under Sections 476 and 479, respectively, of the Italian Criminal Code.
On an unspecified date in 1994 the proceedings were transferred for reasons of territorial competence to the newly set up Torre Annunziata District Court. The first hearing before this court was held on 8 November 1994.
On 27 October 1995 the Torre Annunziata District Court changed the original charge against the applicants to forgery committed by a public officer in certificates or administrative authorisations ("falsità ideologica commessa dal pubblico ufficiale in certificati o autorizzazioni amministrative"), which is an offence under Section 480 of the Criminal Code, and ruled that the proceedings be discontinued as being time-barred. The decision was filed with the court's registry on 15 July 1996.
On an unspecified date the Public Prosecutor of the Naples Court of Appeal appealed against the above decision.
Hearings were held before the Naples Court of Appeal on 9 June 1997 and on 22 September 1997. On 21 October 1997 the court acquitted the applicants of the original charge of forgery of public deeds on the ground that the facts of the case did not constitute an offence (il fatto non costituisce reato).
The judgment became final, in respect of the applicants, on 25 October 1997.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings.
PROCEDURE
On 22 October 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to give notice of the applications to the respondent Government, and invited them to submit their observations on their admissibility and merits.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the cases fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
The Government submitted their observations in respect of the first applicant on 1 February 1999, to which the applicant replied on 12 March 1999.
The Government submitted their observations in respect of the second applicant on 8 February 1999, to which the applicant replied on 22 March 1999.
The Government submitted their observations in respect of the third applicant on 20 January 1999, to which the applicant replied on 24 February 1999.
The Government submitted their observations in respect of the fourth and fifth applicants on 12 January 1999, to which the applicants replied on 25 February 1999.
THE LAW
The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began, in respect of the first and third applicants, on 5 November 1985, when they were informed of the existence of criminal investigations against them and on an unspecified date in 1985 in respect of the other applicants; they ended on 25 October 1997, when the judgment of the Naples Court of Appeal became final.
According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings – a period of approximately 11 months and 11 years for two degrees of jurisdiction – is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government refute the allegation.
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
DECIDES TO JOIN THE APPLICATIONS;
DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghMarc Fischbach Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy