DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 35756/97
by Antonio and Luigi IULIANO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 23 March 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, 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 10 April 1997 by Antonio and Luigi Iuliano against Italy and registered on 24 April 1997 under file no. 35756/97;
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 on 2 December 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 25 January 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are two Italian nationals, born respectively in 1929 and 1958 and residing in Chianche.
Before the Court, they are represented by Mr Giovanni Romano, Mr Togo Verrilli and Mr Antonio Lombardi, lawyers practising in Benevento.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 December 1986, F.T. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants for having threatened him and having used violence against him.
On 12 March 1987, the applicants were questioned by the police in Chianche.
On 2 November 1987, the applicants were summoned to appear before the Benevento Public Prosecutor.
On 17 November 1987, the applicants were questioned by the Benevento Public Prosecutor.
On 9 March 1989, the applicants were committed for trial before the Benevento Court. The first hearing was set for 11 February 1993.
On 11 February 1993, the hearing was postponed to 6 May 1993 because the first applicant could not attend.
On 6 May 1993, the hearing was postponed to 14 October 1993 and then to 2 May 1994, because of a lawyers' strike.
By a judgment of 6 June 1994, the applicants were convicted of having threatened F.T. and having used violence against him and were given a suspended sentence of seven months imprisonment by the Benevento Court.
On 7 June 1994, the applicants lodged an appeal.
The first hearing before the Naples court of appeal was set for 14 February 1995.
Because of a lawyers'strike, the hearing was postponed to 30 May, 31 October 1995, 26 March and 9 July 1996.
By a decision of 9 July 1996, the Naples court of appeal acquitted the applicants because the charges were invalidated by prescription. This decision became final on 17 October 1996.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them. They invoke Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
On 9 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 2 December 1998, to which the applicants replied on 25 January 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 applicants complain that the proceedings brought against them were unreasonably long. These proceedings began on 18 December 1986, when a criminal complaint against the applicants was lodged and ended on 17 October 1996, when the Naples Court of appeal’s decision became final. The applicants allege that the length of the proceedings - a period of about nine years and ten months - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Government consider that, having regard to lawyers’ strike which involved several adjournments, the length of the proceedings can not be seen as unreasonable. Furthermore the Government observe that the applicants took advantage of the length of the proceedings insofar as the charges against them were invalidated by prescription
The applicants contest the Government’s arguments. They allege that the investigations were not carried out at a steady rhythm by the investigating authorities. Furthermore they submit that the lawyers’ strike was organised to protest against the bad functioning of the judicial system and consider that in any event the periods in between individual hearings were too long.
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, by a majority, the Court
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy