AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 23568/94
by V. G.
against Italy
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 15 May 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 3 November 1993
by V.G. against Italy and registered on 3 March 1994 under file
No. 23568/94 ;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the Commission's decision of 28 June 1995 to communicate the
complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings and
to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
13 October 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 22 December 1995;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1931 and currently
residing in Reggio Calabria.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
On 11 March 1991, the Public Prosecutor of Palmi ordered the
seizure of the applicant's car; at the same time, the Public Prosecutor
informed the applicant that committal proceedings had been initiated
against him on charges, inter alia, of fraud and belonging to a
criminal association. 546 other persons, including the person from whom
the applicant had bought the car, were involved in the investigations.
The case concerned an illegal trade of new cars by employees and
managers of the car company with the connivance of certain bailiffs.
The applicant's car was seized on 13 March 1991; numerous other
cars were also seized.
On 12 April 1991 the applicant lodged a first request to release
his car from seizure; this request was dismissed by the Public
Prosecutor by a decree of the same day for reasons of preservation of
evidence.
On 3 May 1991 the Public Prosecutor urged the investigating judge
to have the car subject to an expert opinion, pointing out that the car
was being kept in an open air parking and was therefore deteriorating.
On 2 March 1992 the Public Prosecutor requested and obtained a
prorogation until 15 November 1992 of the time-limit for closing the
preliminary investigation.
On 30 July 1992 the applicant lodged a second request to have his
car released from seizure. By decree of 1 October 1992, the Public
Prosecutor rejected it on the ground that further investigations were
necessary.
On 10 November 1992, the Public Prosecutor requested and obtained
a six months' extension of the time-limit for closing the preliminary
investigation.
On 12 January 1993 the applicant was interrogated by the police.
On 16 July 1993, the Public Prosecutor requested that the
investigations against the applicant and 54 coaccused be discontinued.
On 25 October 1993 the applicant sought a third time to have his
car released from seizure; by decree of 21 January 1994, the Public
Prosecutor dismissed this request on the ground that the car
constituted the corpus delicti and could therefore be subject to future
confiscation.
By decree of 4 May 1994, the applicant was informed that,
following the Public Prosecutor's request to discontinue the
proceedings against him and to commit certain coaccused of his for
trial, he was now being considered as an injured party, and that the
first hearing was scheduled for 19 May 1994.
On 10 May 1994, the applicant sought again to have his car
released from seizure.
By a decision of 24 June 1994, the criminal proceedings against
the applicant and 54 coaccused were discontinued and the seizure of the
applicant's car lifted. The other coaccused were committed for trial.
On 4 July 1994 the applicant's car was released from seizure.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges that the criminal proceedings instituted
against him exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6
para. 1 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 3 November 1993 and registered
on 3 March 1994.
On 28 June 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the
complaint related to the length of the criminal proceedings to the
respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of
Procedure, and to declare the remainder of the application
inadmissible.
The Government's written observations were submitted on
13 October 1995. The applicant replied on 22 December 1995.
THE LAW
The applicant complains about the length of the criminal
proceedings instituted against him. He invokes Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:
"In the determination of any (...) criminal charge against him,
everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing within a reasonable time
by (...) a tribunal (...)."
The proceedings in question began on 11 March 1991, when the
applicant was informed of the opening of preliminary investigations
against him (see Eur. Court H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980,
series A no. 35, p. 24, para. 46) and ended on 24 June 1994; therefore
their overall length covers three years, three months and thirteen
days.
The Commission recalls that:
"The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings is to be
assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the
case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's
case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the
applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities ..."
(Eur. Court H.R., Kemmache judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A
no. 218, p. 27, para. 60).
The Government disclaim any responsibility on the part of the
judicial authorities by invoking the extraordinary complexity of the
case, given the nature of the main charge (belonging to a criminal
organisation) and the number of coaccused (546). They point out in this
respect that the Public Prosecutor was granted two extensions of the
time-limits for closing the investigations. In particular, they explain
that the delay between the Public Prosecutor's request that the charges
against the applicant be dropped and the Investigation Judge's
subsequent decision to dismiss the case is due to the necessity of
informing all the injured parties of such request, in order to enable
them to lodge a possible opposition thereto.
The Government underline that, the present case concerning a
criminal association, the severance of the applicant's case from that
of his coaccused would have been incompatible with the good
administration of justice and argue that the overall length of the
proceedings cannot, in any event, be regarded as unreasonable.
The applicant contends that the duration of the proceedings is
in any event excessive. He points out in particular that two years
elapsed between the opening of preliminary investigations against him
and his first and only interrogation by the police. He recalls that it
is for the Italian Government to organise their legal system so as to
comply with the requirement of the reasonable length of proceedings.
The Commission first considers, in the light of the observations
submitted by the Government, that the preliminary investigations were
undoubtedly complex.
With reference to the delay of almost two years between the
opening on 11 March 1991 of the preliminary investigations and the
applicant's interrogation on 12 January 1993 by the police, the
Commission considers that, if it is true that no activity seems to have
been carried out in respect of the applicant during this period, it is
plausible, as the Government have convincingly explained, that a
certain activity was carried out in respect of the numerous coaccused.
The Commission further notes that it took the Palmi court almost
one year from the date when the Public Prosecutor requested that the
investigations against the applicant be discontinued (16 July 1993) to
do so (24 June 1994). However, the Commission considers, as pointed out
by the Government, that such a delay cannot be regarded as
unreasonable, given the number of injured parties to be informed of
such request in order to enable them to lodge a possible opposition
thereto.
The Commission notes that the course of the investigation would
probably have been accelerated had the applicant's case been severed
from those of his coaccused. However, the Commission considers that
nothing suggests that such a severance would have been compatible with
the good administration of justice; it points out in this respect that
a concern for speed cannot dispense the judges from taking every
measure likely to throw light on the truth or falsehood of the charges
(see Eur. Court. H.R., Neumeister judgment of 27 June 1968, series A.
no. 8, p. 43, para. 21; no. 9627/81, Comm. report 14.3.84, D.R. 37, pp.
15 ss.; no. 7438/76, Comm. report 15.12.80, D.R. 23, pp. 5 ss.).
The Commission therefore considers that, in light of the
complexity of the present case, the reasonable time referred to in
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention has not been exceeded
in the present case.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and
must be rejected in pursuance of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy