Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 20358/92

Nicola Savoia

against

Italy

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 12 April 1996)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

A. The application

(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5-8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

C. The present Report

(paras. 9-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 12-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 21-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

B. Point at issue

(para. 22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

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

(paras. 23-32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

1. The period to be taken into consideration

(para. 24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings

(paras. 25-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

CONCLUSION

(para. 32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

APPENDIX : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . .6

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicant is an Italian citizen, born in 1943 and residing

in Fasano di Brindisi. He was represented before the Commission by

Mr. Ascanio Amenduni.

3. The application is directed against Italy. The respondent

Government were represented by Mr. Umberto Leanza, Head of the

Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

4. The case concerns a complaint about the length of criminal

proceedings in respect of charges of abuse of power and making of false

statements in a document. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of

the Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 18 May 1993 and registered on

5 August 1993.

6. On 22 February 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided,

pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give

notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite

the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and

merits of the complaint related to the length of the criminal

proceedings.

7. The Government's observations were submitted on 5 May 1995. The

applicant replied on 18 July 1995.

8. On 18 October 1995 the Commission declared the application

admissible as to the complaint concerning the length of the

proceedings; it declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.

The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is

annexed hereto.

C. The present Report

9. The Commission (First Chamber), having found that there is no

basis on which a friendly settlement pursuant to Article 28 para. 1 (b)

of the Convention can be effected, has drawn up the present report in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and

votes, 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

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

10. The text of this Report was adopted on 12 April 1996 by the

Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

11. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is:

(i) to establish the facts, and

(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under

the Convention.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

12. In November 1987, the applicant filed with the Public

Prosecutor's office of Brindisi, with a view to requesting to be

admitted to the Register of Auditors, a request for a certificate

confirming that no criminal proceedings were pending against him

("certificato dei carichi pendenti"). The certificate, issued on

17 November, showed that on 17 January 1986 certain investigations for

abuse of power and making of false statements in a document ("interesse

privato in atti d'ufficio e falso ideologico") had been started against

him. The charges related to acts presumedly committed by the applicant

between 1980 and 1981, at the time when he was a town councillor in

Fasano.

13. As a consequence of the said pending proceedings, the applicant's

request to be admitted to the Register of Auditors, meanwhile lodged,

was rejected.

14. In 1988, the applicant was also forced to resign from his

position of auditor in a company, due to his dubious reputation.

15. By note of 30 October 1989, the Investigating Judge sent the case

back to the Public Prosecutor, the new Code of Criminal Procedure

having meanwhile entered into force.

16. Pursuant to the Public Prosecutor's request of 25 May 1990, on

26 May 1990 the applicant and ten coaccused were summoned to appear

before the Brindisi Court for the preliminary hearing ("udienza

preliminare"); the applicant was charged with abuse of power and making

false statements in a document.

17. The preliminary hearing, originally scheduled for 29 June 1990,

took place on 19 October 1990. By decision on the same day, the

Investigating Judge ("giudice per l'udienza preliminare") dismissed the

charge of abuse of power as time-barred and committed the applicant for

trial on charges of making false statements in a document.

18. The trial was fixed for 22 November 1991.

19. On 12 March 1991, the applicant filed a request for the trial to

be brought forward. By decree of 20 May 1991, the presiding judge of

the Brindisi court fixed the hearing for 4 October 1991; nevertheless,

the trial was eventually postponed to 5 November 1991.

20. By judgment delivered on the same day, the applicant was

acquitted. The judgment became final on 2 January 1992.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

21. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint

about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.

B. Point at issue

22. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings

against the applicant exceeded the "reasonable time" 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

23. 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 (...)."

1. The period to be taken into consideration

24. The period to be taken into consideration began on

17 January 1986, when the applicant's name was included in the register

of the persons against whom preliminary investigations are pending

("casellario giudiziale presso la Procura"), and ended on

2 January 1992, when the applicant's acquittal became final. The

period under consideration is therefore five years, eleven months and

fifteen days.

2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings

25. 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).

26. The Government disclaim any responsibility on the part of the

judicial authorities by invoking the difficult situation faced by the

domestic courts following the entering into force, in October 1989, of

the new code of criminal procedure, as well as the lack of sufficient

staff and means to deal with such a situation.

27. The applicant objects that the new code only entered into force

in October 1989, when almost four years had already elapsed since the

commencement of the proceedings against him.

28. The Commission recalls that the Contracting States are under a

duty to organise their legal systems so as to enable the courts to

comply with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1, (Art. 6-1) including

that of a trial within a "reasonable time" (cf. Eur. Court H.R.,

Baggetta judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119-B, p. 32, par. 23).

29. The Commission notes that no activity whatsoever seems to have

been carried out between 17 January 1986 and 30 October 1989 (three

years, nine months and thirteen days). It further notes a delay of one

year and sixteen days between the applicant's committal for trial on

19 October 1990 and his acquittal on 5 November 1991.

30. The Commission has considered the submissions of the parties in

this respect, and finds that this delay of four years and ten months

in all, which is attributable to the competent authorities, is not

convincingly explained by the Government.

31. In light of the criteria and circumstances of the case described

above, the Commission considers that the length of the proceedings in

this case, being almost six years, has not been justified by the

Government. Consequently the Commission finds that the reasonable time

referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention has been

exceeded.

CONCLUSION

32. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN