Application No. 28589/95

by Procopio DI MAGGIO

against Italy

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 15 September 1998, the following members being present:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

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

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 21 March 1995 by Procopio DI MAGGIO against Italy and registered on 19 September 1995 under file No. 28589/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1916 and currently residing in Palermo. He is represented before the Commission by Mr Leo Ubaldo , a lawyer practising in Palermo.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant's representative, may be summarized as follows.

The applicant was arrested on 12 April 1986 on a charge of belonging to a mafia -type association ( associazione a delinquere di stampo mafioso ). On an unspecified date in 1988 he was found guilty and was given a prison sentence.

The applicant was served, while detained, five orders of detention on remand in relation to five sets of investigations opened against him. He was charged, inter alia , with membership of a mafia -type association and with having committed 14 murders. The applicant is suspected of having been a member of the decision-making body called "La Commissione " of one of the most important mafia -association known as " Cosa Nostra ". Notwithstanding his age, the applicant is considered to be extremely dangerous due the leading position he is suspected to have held - and to currently hold - in the mafia hierarchy.

Certain of the five criminal proceedings in relation to which the applicant was detained on remand are currently pending before different courts.

Since 2 June 1994 the applicant was detained on remand under the special detention regime provided for by Article 41-bis of Law no. 354 of 26 July 1975, as amended by Law Decree no. 306 of 8 June 1992, converted into Law no. 356 of 7 August 1992, which imposes a particularly severe detention regime on detainees charged with certain crimes, in particular mafia -related crimes.

According to a medical report issued on 12 September 1994 the applicant suffered from cardio -vascular disorders and hypertensive cardiopathy and presented also neuro -psychiatric symptoms of arteriosclerosis, whereas two further medical reports issued on 15 April 1994 and on 23 December 1994 respectively, stated that the applicant had a clear mind.

On an unspecified date the applicant filed a request to be released with the Reggio Calabria Assize Court. On 3 November 1994 the above court rejected the applicant's request while ordering his house detention.

On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Palermo Assize Court to release him on the ground that his health condition was incompatible with detention. On 28 December 1994 the Palermo Assize Court rejected the applicant's request. Ground for the decision was a medical report issued on 23 December 1994 according to which the applicant's health condition was compatible with detention, provided that his hypertensive cardiopathy would continue to be duly treated and that medical check-ups would be carried out regularly.

On 3 January 1995 the applicant appealed the decision before the Palermo Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 31 January 1995.

At the hearing held on 21 January 1995 before the Assize Court of Palermo the applicant reiterated his request to be released. On 2 February 1995 the court rejected the request.

On an unspecified date the applicant filed an appeal with the Palermo District Court seeking to be released. On 31 May 1995 the Palermo District Court granted the applicant's request on the ground that the circumstantial evidence against the applicant, concerning the proceedings at issue, was no longer so serious as to require the continuation of his detention on remand.

In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the applicant was acquitted by the Reggio Calabria Assize Court. On an unspecified date the applicant was thus released.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained, under Article 3, that he had not been granted house detention and that he was subjected to a high security detention regime under Article 41-bis of Law no. 354 of 26 July 1975, as amended by Law Decree no. 306 of 8 June 1992. He alleged that his age and his poor health condition were incompatible with detention.

2. The applicant also complained about the length of his detention on remand. He invoked Article 5 para . 3 and Article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Convention.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that, on 23 March 1998, the Secretariat invited the applicant's representative in writing to submit certain information relating to the case, in particular details and dates about the proceedings and the detention, and an update of the facts. On 20 April 1998 the applicant's representative replied to the Secretariat but failed to submit the requested information.

The Commission also notes that, on 11 May 1998, the Secretariat reiterated its request, underlining the importance of the requested information and warning the applicant's representative that the failure to reply before 10 June 1998 could cause delays in the examination of the application by the Commission. The applicant's representative failed to reply.

The Commission finally notes that on 2 July 1998 the Secretariat sent a registered letter to the applicant's representative, which he received on 13 July 1998, warning him that, should he fail to reply before 10 August 1998 and to submit the requested information, the Commission might consider that the applicant did not wish to pursue the application. The applicant's representative failed to reply.

In these circumstances, the Commission finds that, having regard to Article 30 para . 1 (a) of the Convention, the applicant has lost interest in his application and no longer intends to pursue it before the Commission. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30 para . 1 in fine, the Commission finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

     Secretary      President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber