Vendittelli v. Italy

Information Note on the Court’s case-law

July 1994

Vendittelli v. Italy - 14804/89

Judgment 18.7.1994

Article 6

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Length of criminal proceedings: no violation

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Continuation of sequestration of a flat: violation

[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]

I.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ("REASONABLE TIME")

A.Period to be taken into consideration

Beginning: confirmation by magistrate of placing of seals on flat.

End: point at which Court of Appeal's decision became final.

Result: four years, five months and ten days.

B.Relevant criteria

Complexity of the case: none.

Applicant's conduct: had contributed to prolonging the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

Authorities' conduct: magistrate's court — had taken eleven months and fifteen days to notify its decision, but as applicant had been present when it was delivered, he could have been expected to obtain a copy of the judgment himself and draw up his grounds of appeal; Court of Appeal — judgment never served, but that failure had had no effect on length of proceedings since matter was one of taking formal note of an amnesty.

Overall length of trial not excessive.

Conclusion: no violation (five votes to four).

II.ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1

A.Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken together with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

Sequestration: measure ancillary to the criminal proceedings, which had not contravened Article 6 § 1.

Conclusion: no violation (five votes to four).

B.Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone

Impugned measure:

(a) had been provided for by law, being designed not to deprive applicant of his property but only to prevent him from using it - second paragraph of Article 1 consequently applicable;

(b) had pursued a legitimate aim, namely to preserve evidence of offence and prevent any aggravation of it;

(c) had no longer been justified, at least as soon as the Court of Appeal's judgment had become final - had placed a disproportionate burden on applicant.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

III.Article 50 of the Convention

Failure to comply with time-limit laid down in the Rules of Court for filing claims for just satisfaction.

Conclusion: claims dismissed (unanimously).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy