EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 28594/95

Eugenio Ghignoni

against

Italy

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 4 March 1998)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-5) 1

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 6-12) 2

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 13-23)              3

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 13) 3

B. Point at issue

(para. 14) 3

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

(paras. 15-22)              3

CONCLUSION

(para. 23) 4

APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 5

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present Report concerns Application No. 28594/95 introduced on 18 March 1995 against Italy and registered on 19 September 1995.

The applicant is a Italian citizen, born in 1957 and resident in Rome.

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

2. The application was communicated to the Government on 16 October 1996.  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 10 September 1997.  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 4 March 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. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIČ

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. In his application, in which he relies on Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the length of criminal proceedings instituted against him in Italy.

7. In pursuance of a warrant of arrest issued on 26 July 1982 by the Rome Investigating Judge against 213 persons, the applicant was arrested on 8 August 1982 while crossing the border from France to Italy, on suspicion of belonging to the criminal association known as " Brigate Rosse ".

8. The applicant was interrogated twice in the absence of his lawyers and availed himself of the right to remain silent; on 24 August 1982 he requested to be interrogated once again after speaking to his lawyers. The examination was held on 22 September 1982.

In the meantime, on 28 August 1982 two identification parades were carried out; however, these were later declared null and void.

The applicant was held in custody in isolation until 12 April 1983 in Rome; he was then transferred to Trani prison.

9. On 13 August 1984 the applicant was committed for trial before the Rome Court of Assizes on charges, inter alia , of belonging to the Brigate Rosse , murder of a police officer and kidnapping.

The first hearing took place on 16 June 1986; the applicant was transferred to Palmi prison and, on the occasion of hearings, to Rome.

On 26 June 1986 the applicant was released, the time-limits for detention on remand having expired.

By judgment of 12 October 1988, filed with the Registry on 6 June 1989, the applicant was convicted of all charges and sentenced to life imprisonment as well as to thirty years' imprisonment.

10. The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment before the Rome Appellate Court of Assizes. The first hearing took place on 17 October 1991. The Court, by judgment of 6 March 1992 acquitted the applicant of the charge of murder, confirmed his conviction of the other charges and sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment.

11. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law; by judgment of 10 May 1993, filed with the Registry on 11 December 1993, the Court of Cassation quashed the Appellate Court of Assizes' judgment and referred the case back before another section of the Rome Appellate Court of Assizes.

12. The first hearing before the latter was held on 6 July 1994; another hearing was held on 17 November 1994.

By judgment delivered on 24 November 1994 and filed with the Registry on 19 January 1995, the applicant was acquitted of all charges. The judgment became final on 28 November 1994.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

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

B. Point at issue

14. 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 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

15. The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) 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 ..."

16. The proceedings in question concerned the criminal charges brought against the applicant and they accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

17. These proceedings, which began on 8 August 1982 when the applicant was arrested, and ended on 28 November 1994, when the applicant's acquittal became final. The overall length is thus twelve years, three months and twenty days for four degrees of jurisdiction.

18. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of the 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 conduct of the parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court HR, Vernillo v. France judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).

19. According to the respondent Government, the length of the period in question is due to the complexity of the case because of the number of coaccused and the nature of charges. The Government point out that there were no periods of inactivity.

20. The Commission agrees with the Government that the case was somewhat complex, particularly because of the number of coaccused and the nature of the charges. However, the Commission considers that the complexity of the case is not sufficient to justify in itself a length of over twelve years.

First of all, the Commission notes the existence of periods of inactivity imputable to the State between the applicant's committal for trial on 13 August 1984 and the first hearing before the Rome Court of Assizes on 16 June 1986, and between 6 June 1989 and the first hearing before the Appellate Court of Assizes on 17 October 1991.  It considers that no convincing explanation for these delays which total more than four years has been advanced by the respondent Government.

As regards the different phases of the proceedings, the Commission recognises that they were conducted at a regular pace. If the case is examined as a whole however, the only possible conclusion is that the reasonable time requirement was not complied with.

21. The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision on any criminal charge brought against him within a reasonable time (see Eur. Court HR, Baggetta v. Italy judgment of 22 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 32, para. 23).

22. 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 was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

CONCLUSION

23. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

   Secretary President

           to the First Chamber of the First Chamber