Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 29881/96

by Monica PUCCIO

against Italy

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 3 December 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs J. LIDDY, President

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

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 September 1995

by Monica PUCCIO against Italy and registered on 22 January 1996 under

file No. 29881/96;

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 5 May

1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on

7 July 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national born in 1958 and residing

in Florence.

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

summarised as follows.

The applicant was an employee of company X.

In June 1988 preliminary investigations concerning the alleged

fraudulent conduct of the persons managing the company were opened by

the Florence Public Prosecutor.

On 30 July 1991 the Public Prosecutor requested that the

applicant and twelve other co-accused be committed for trial.

On 2 August 1991 the applicant read in "La Nazione", one of the

major Italian newspapers, that following the opening of a second set

of preliminary investigations against the managing directors of

company X as well as against several of its employees, the Public

Prosecutor had requested that she and twelve co-accused be committed

for trial.

On 5 March 1992 the applicant was committed for trial before the

Florence court together with three co-accused on the charge of

belonging to a criminal association.

By an act of 27 March 1993, the Presiding judge of the Florence

court fixed the hearing for 19 January 1994; however, this decision was

never served on the applicant and two coaccused who therefore did not

appear at the hearing. The proceedings were thus adjourned until

28 June 1994.

However, on this date the trial was again postponed to

21 September 1995 on grounds of lack of personnel in the court and of

the need to conduct other trials of exceptional importance.

By a judgment delivered on 21 September 1995 and filed with the

Registry on 16 October 1995, the Court of Florence acquitted the

applicant. The Court held that the acquittal of three of the

applicant's coaccused - allegedly the organizers of the fraud of which

the applicant was accused - by judgment of 8 November 1993 delivered

by the Florence Court as a result of the proceedings instituted against

them for the same facts and on the same charges as in the proceedings

at issue clearly demonstrated also the applicant's innocence.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that she read about the opening of

criminal proceedings against her in the press before she was duly

informed by the judicial authorities.

2. She further complains of the length of the criminal proceedings

instituted against her, and in particular of the lack of any

significant activity for almost all the duration of the proceedings.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 26 September 1995 and

registered on 22 January 1996.

On 26 February 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

application.

The Government's written observations were submitted on 5 May

1997. The applicant replied on 7 July 1997.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of the length and fairness of the

criminal proceedings brought against her for belonging to a criminal

organization. In particular, she complains that she was never duly

informed of the opening of preliminary investigations against her.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as

relevant, reads as follows:

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

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

tribunal ..."

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language that he understands

and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation

against him; ..."

(a) Insofar as the fairness of the proceedings is concerned, the

Commission recalls that the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6

(Art. 6-3) represent particular aspects of the right to a fair trial

guaranteed in paragraph 1. However, it recalls its constant case-law

to the effect that an acquitted defendant cannot claim to be a victim

of a violation of the Convention which allegedly took place in the

course of the proceedings as a result of which he was acquitted (see

inter alia No. 15831/89, Dec. 25.2.91, D.R. 69, p. 317). It observes

that in the present case the applicant was acquitted by a judgment of

21 September 1995.

It follows that the applicant cannot claim to be a "victim",

within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, of a

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) as regards the fairness of

the proceedings. Therefore, this part of the application is

incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

(b) As regards the length of the proceedings, the Commission observes

that the proceedings at issue began at the latest on 2 August 1991 when

the applicant read in the newspaper that she was the object of

preliminary investigations, and ended with the applicant's acquittal

by judgment of 21 September 1995; the global length is thus

approximately four years and two months.

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 particularly of the number of

coaccused. The applicant contest the Government's arguments.

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 applicant), 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 ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the

applicant's complaint relating to the length of the

proceedings;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

PUCCIO v. ITALY

PUCCIO v. ITALY

LEXI