Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 32045/96

by Rocco MORELLI

against Italy

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 21 January 1998, the following members being present:

MM N. BRATZA, Acting President

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

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 26 April 1996 by

Rocco MORELLI against Italy and registered on 26 June 1996 under file

No. 32045/96;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 9 June

1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on

24 July 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1950 and residing

in Palmi (Reggio Calabria).

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

On 7 February 1986 S.S. filed a criminal complaint against the

applicant for slander with the Treviso Court.

On 5 April 1986 the Treviso Public Prosecutor requested the

opening of criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of

slander and extortion; however, on 2 May 1986 the Treviso Court decided

to suspend these criminal proceedings awaiting the outcome of another

set of criminal proceedings related to the act of slander allegedly

committed by the applicant, namely proceedings which had been brought

against S.S. and were also pending before the Treviso Court.

Following S.S.'s acquittal by judgment of 28 May 1987, on

5 January 1988 the Treviso Court resumed the criminal proceedings

against the applicant. On the same day, it served on the applicant the

warning that criminal proceedings had been opened against him, inviting

the latter to appoint his defence lawyer.

On 11 October 1990 the applicant was interrogated by the Treviso

Public Prosecutor in relation to the charges of inter alia slander and

extortion.

On 10 December 1990 the Treviso Public Prosecutor requested that

the applicant be committed for trial on charges of slander and

extortion.

On 20 December 1990 the Treviso Judge for the Preliminary

Investigations fixed the preliminary hearing for 28 February 1991.

(a) The proceedings relating to the charge of extortion

On 12 April 1991 the Treviso Judge for the Preliminary

Investigations committed the applicant for trial on the charge of

extortion and summoned him to appear before the Treviso Court at the

hearing of 10 June 1991.

By a judgment of 2 October 1991, which was filed with the

Registry on 5 October 1991, the Treviso Court acquitted the applicant

in relation to the charge of extortion. On 13 November 1991 the Public

Prosecutor appealed to the Venice Court of Appeal against this

judgment.

On 4 February 1994 the applicant requested the Venice Court of

Appeal to speed up the proceedings relating to the charge of extortion.

(b) The proceedings relating to the charge of slander

On 12 April 1991 the Treviso Judge for the Preliminary

Investigations dropped the charge of slander against the applicant.

On 22 April 1991 the Public Prosecutor appealed to the Venice

Court of Appeal against this judgment. By a decision of 25 March

1994, filed with the Registry on 6 April 1994, the Venice Court of

Appeal upheld the Public Prosecutor's appeal and committed the

applicant for trial before the Treviso Court; the first hearing was

fixed at 6 June 1994.

By a judgment of 6 June 1994, filed with the Registry on 13 June

1994, the Treviso Court again acquitted the applicant.

On 21 July 1994 the Public Prosecutor appealed to the Venice

Court of Appeal against this judgment. The first appeal hearing was

fixed for 22 September 1994.

(c) The appeal proceedings

On 22 September 1994, the Court of Appeal joined the two

proceedings against the applicant pending before it with another set

of proceedings pending against S.S. for fraudulent bankruptcy, and

adjourned the case to 27 March 1995.

However, on 5 December 1994 the Court of Appeal adjourned the

case sine die on grounds that one of the judges had to take part in

another trial and could not therefore participate in the applicant's

case.

On 1st February 1996 the applicant requested the Venice Court of

appeal to resume the proceedings.

On 19 March 1997, the Venice Court of appeal severed the

proceedings on the ground that those against S.S. were summary

proceedings ("rito abbreviato") unlike those against the applicant.

The first hearing was held on 7 July 1997, and the proceedings

were then adjourned to 24 September 1997.

The proceedings are currently pending before the Venice Court of

appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 26 April 1996 and registered

on 26 June 1996.

On 9 April 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

The Government's written observations were submitted on 9 June

1997. The applicant replied on 24 July 1997.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings

brought against him on charges of slander and extortion. He alleges a

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which

insofar as relevant reads as follows:

"In the determination of any charge against him, everyone is

entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ...

tribunal ...".

The Commission observes that the proceedings at issue began at

the latest on 5 January 1988 and are currently pending; the global

length of the proceedings is thus at least ten years.

The respondent Government argue that the length of the

proceedings cannot be regarded as unreasonable in view of the

procedural complexity of the case and of the number of instances. The

applicant submits that such length is excessive, particularly in the

light of what is at stake for him in the proceedings, namely his

reputation.

The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria

established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question

of the "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 a thorough examination of

this complaint is required both as to the law and as to the facts. No

other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

merits of the case.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO N. BRATZA

Secretary Acting President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

MORELLI v. ITALY

MORELLI v. ITALY

LEXI