EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 27584/95

Renzo Bertelli

against

Italy

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 9 September 1998)

27584/95 - i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

( paras . 1 - 5) 1

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

( paras . 6 - 15) 2

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

( paras . 16 - 27) 3

A. Complaint declared admissible

( para . 16) 3

B. Point at issue

( para . 17) 3

C. As regards Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention

( paras . 18 - 26) 3

CONCLUSION

( para . 27) 4

APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

OF THE APPLICATION 5

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present Report concerns Application No. 27584/95 introduced on 6 March 1995 against Italy and registered on 12 June 1995.

The applicant is an Italian national born in 1937 and currently residing in Trecenta ( Rovigo ). He was represented before the Commission by Mr Mario Bacchiega , a lawyer practising in Rovigo .

The respondent Government were represented by Mr Umberto Leanza , Head of the Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. The application was communicated to the Government on 21 May 1997. Following an exchange of written observations, the complaint relating to the length of proceedings (Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention) was declared admissible on 16 April 1998. The decision on admissibility is appended to this Report.

3. Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para . 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (First Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 9 September 1998 in accordance with Article 31 para . 1 of the Convention, the following members being present:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENI_

C. BÃŽRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

4. In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Italy.

5. The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para . 2 of the Convention.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

6. On 16 June 1982 the applicant was arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the Venice Public Prosecutor on charges inter alia of belonging to a criminal organization and fraud.

7. On 5 July 1982 the case was submitted to the Venice Investigating Judge.

8. On 18 and 24 July 1982 the applicant was interrogated by the Public Prosecutor.

9. On 31 August 1982 the applicant was released.

10. On 12 September 1986 the applicant was committed for trial before the Venice Court together with five coaccused .

11. By a judgment of 30 November 1988, the Venice Court declared its lack of jurisdiction and sent the case before the Piacenza Court.

12. On 23 September 1994 the accused requested that the case be decided through an abridged procedure, i.e. on the basis of the elements contained in the case-file (" allo stato degli atti "). Their request was granted.

13. By a judgment issued on the same day and filed with the Registry on 29 September 1994, the Piacenza Court ruled that the proceedings against three coaccused be discontinued and acquitted the applicant and the other two coaccused . The judgment became final on 8 November 1994.

14. On 29 February 1996 the applicant filed an application with the Court of Appeal of Bologna seeking compensation for his unfair detention. The application was dismissed on 9 December 1996.

15. On 11 June 1997 the Court of Cassation declared inadmissible the appeal filed by the applicant against the above-mentioned decision of 9 December 1996.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

16. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant’s complaint that his case was not heard within a reasonable time.

B. Point at issue

17. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention

18. The relevant part of Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention provides as follows:

"In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ..."

19. The proceedings in question concerned the determination of the charges of, inter alia , belonging to a criminal organization and fraud. The proceedings accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention.

20. These proceedings, which began on 16 June 1982 with the applicant’s arrest (cf. Eur . Court HR, Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 26, para . 19) and ended when the applicant’s acquittal became final on 8 November 1994, lasted approximately twelve years and five months for one degree of jurisdiction.

21. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur . Court HR, Vallée v. France judgment of 26 April 1994, Series A no. 289-A, p. 17, para . 34; Eur . Court HR, Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III, p. 948, para . 39).

22. The Government did not offer any arguments that the length of the proceedings was "reasonable". The applicant maintains that it was not.

23. The Commission notes a delay of about two years and two months between 12 September 1986, when the applicant was committed for trial before the Venice Court, and 30 November 1988, when the latter court sent the case to the Piacenza Court. The Commission also notes a further delay of about five years and ten months between the latter date and 23 September 1994, when the Piacenza Court acquitted the applicant on the basis of the elements already contained in the case-file.

1. The Commission has considered the submissions of the parties in this respect and finds that this delay of about eight years, which is attributable to the authorities, is not convincingly explained by the Government. The Commission underlines in particular that the case was decided in September 1994 on the basis of the elements which appear to have been in possession of the courts since September 1986.

2. The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems as to enable the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 para . 1, including that of a trial within a "reasonable time" (cf. Eur . Court HR, Baggetta v. Italy judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119-B, p. 32, para . 23).

3. In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that the length of the proceedings at issue, being approximately twelve years and five months for one degree of jurisdiction, is excessive and fails to meet the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention.

CONCLUSION

4. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

   Secretary President

       to the First Chamber of the First Chamber