Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 29530/95

by Antonio ROSSI

against Italy

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 10 September 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

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 4 November 1995

by Antonio ROSSI against Italy and registered on 12 December 1995 under

file No. 29530/95;

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

20 January 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 4 March 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national born in 1952 and currently

residing in Avellino. Before the Commission, the applicant is

represented by Mr. Giuseppe Argenio, a lawyer practising in Avellino.

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

summarised as follows.

On 11 June 1986 a Public Notary reported to the Avellino

Magistrate that the applicant had issued two uncovered cheques;

preliminary investigations against the applicant were thus started and

on 3 July 1986 transferred to the Naples Magistrate for reasons of

competence.

On 21 October 1986 the applicant filed with this Magistrate a

request that his case be dealt with promptly.

On 28 October 1986 the Naples Magistrate summoned the applicant

to appear before him at the hearing of 7 April 1987. By a judgment

delivered on the same day and filed with the Registry on 21 April 1987,

the Magistrate convicted the applicant of having issued uncovered

cheques and sentenced him inter alia to two months' imprisonment.

On 7 April 1987, the applicant lodged an appeal before the Naples

Court of Appeal.

On 25 May 1989, he filed a request that his case be dealt with

promptly.

The first hearing before the Court of Appeal, fixed on 25 January

1990, was adjourned.

On 30 January 1990 the applicant declared that he did not intend

to benefit from an amnesty and requested that the charges against him

be dropped or, alternatively, that his case be dealt with promptly.

On 10 April 1990, the Court of Appeal, having noted that the

applicant's counsel had not been informed of the date of the hearing,

decided to adjourn the proceedings.

On 12 April 1990 the applicant requested again that his case be

dealt with promptly.

On 26 May 1990 he reiterated that he did not intend to benefit

from the amnesty.

By order of 10 July 1990, the Court of Appeal summoned certain

witnesses and postponed the case until 25 October 1990. The hearing of

13 November was adjourned because on that day lawyers practising in the

Naples District were on strike.

By a judgment delivered on 31 January 1991 and filed with the

Registry on 5 February 1991, the Naples Court of Appeal annulled the

judgment of the Naples Magistrate and held that the charges against the

applicant had to be dismissed because of the amnesty.

On 2 February 1991, the applicant appealed on points of law

against this judgment. By a judgment delivered on 7 May 1992 and filed

with the Registry on 17 June 1992, the Court of Cassation quashed the

judgment and referred the case back before another chamber of the

Naples Court of Appeal.

In the subsequent proceedings, the hearings of 16 March and

26 June 1993 were adjourned at the applicant's request, while the

hearings of 3 December 1993 and 27 May 1994 were postponed because on

those days lawyers practising in the Naples District were on strike.

By a judgment delivered on 12 October 1994 and filed with the

Registry on 13 October 1994, the Naples Court of Appeal held that the

charges against the applicant were time-barred.

On 5 January 1995 the applicant appealed on points of law against

this judgment; by a judgment of 9 May 1995, filed with the Registry on

22 July 1995, the Court of Cassation quashed the impugned judgment and

acquitted the applicant.

COMPLAINT

The applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings

instituted against him on charges of having issued uncovered cheques

exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 4 November 1995 and registered

on 12 December 1995.

On 16 October 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

20 January 1997. The applicant replied on 4 March 1997.

THE LAW

The applicant complains about the length of the criminal

proceedings instituted against him. He invokes Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:

"In the determination of ... any criminal charge against

him, everybody is entitled to a ... hearing within a

reasonable time ...".

The Commission notes that proceedings started at the latest on

21 October 1986, when the applicant filed with the Naples Magistrate

a request that his case be dealt with promptly, and ended on 9 May

1995, when the applicant's acquittal became final. The overall length

is thus eight years, six month and eighteen days for five degrees of

jurisdiction.

The Government observe that there were no periods of stand still

during the investigations. They also point out that the first instance

proceedings have been dealt with speedily. As to the two sets of

proceedings before the Naples Court of Appeal, the Government maintain

that their length is due to the conduct of the applicant, who failed

to correctly identify the witnesses which, according to the Government,

were examined on his behalf. Moreover, they point out that the

applicant requested the adjournment of the hearings of 25 January and

25 October 1990. They argue that in view of all the circumstances of

the present case, the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be

regarded as being unreasonable.

The applicant argues that his case was a very simple one and

contends that the excessive length is due to the conduct of the

judicial authorities. He furthermore observes that he applied for the

hearing to be adjourned only twice - namely on 16 March and 26 June

1993 - for serious reasons of health and recalls that on several

occasions he asked for his case be dealt with promptly. He finally

notes that the witnesses to which the Government make reference in

their observations have not been examined on his behalf, but were

summoned on the Court's of Appeal own motion.

The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria

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

of "reasonable time", and having regard to all the information in its

possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is

required.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

merits of the case.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

ROSSI v. ITALY

ROSSI v. ITALY

LEXI