SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 43199/98
by Claudio VISINTIN
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 6 April 2000 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 the application introduced on 4 June 1998 and registered on 31 August 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1957 and currently residing in Scorzè (Venice). He is a police officer. He is represented before the Court by Mr Pietro Volpe, a lawyer practising in Spinea (Venice).
On 16 March 1995, the Venice Public Prosecutor questioned the applicant in relation to the charges of blackmail and receiving stolen goods brought against two of his colleagues, Mr F. and Mr L. Considering that the applicant had made false statements during his examination, the Public Prosecutor commenced criminal proceedings against him.
By an order of 18 March 1995, served with the applicant on 20 March 1995, the Venice Public Prosecutor informed the applicant of the charge against him and requested him to appear on 24 March 1995 in order to be questioned.
After the entry into force of law no. 332/95 on 23 August 1995, the proceedings against the applicant were suspended awaiting the outcome of those against Mr F. and Mr L. (hereinafter referred to as “the main set of proceedings”). The law at issue had amended Article 371-bis of the Criminal Code, providing that criminal proceedings for making false statements should be suspended until a first-instance judgment is given in the main set of proceedings or until the charges in those proceedings are discontinued.
On 9 June 1998, the applicant introduced a claim before the Venice investigating judge. He objected that Article 371-bis was unconstitutional, as contrary to the principles of equality of rights, presumption of innocence and fair administration of justice, as well as to the right of an accused person to defend himself (Article 24 of the Constitution).
By an order of 27 October 1998, the investigating judge, observing that the impugned provision was aimed at offering a procedural guarantee to the accused, whose responsibility could be properly ascertained only in the light of the outcome of the main set of proceedings, dismissed the applicant’s claim as being manifestly ill-founded.
On 19 November 1998, the applicant appealed on points of law before the Court of Cassation against the order of 27 October 1998.
According to the information provided by the parties on 21 September 1999, the proceedings were still pending at that date and a hearing had been scheduled for 7 October 1999.
THE LAW
The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 16 March 1995 and were still pending on 21 September 1999, which is four years, six months and five days later.
According to the applicant, the overall duration of the proceedings is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government disputed this claim.
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