SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 35991/97 by Alberto DEL FEDERICO against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) , sitting on 15 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President ,

Mr A.B. Baka, Mr G. Bonello , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mr M. Fischbach , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , judges ,

and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 December 1996 and registered on 12 May 1997,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1962 and living in Falconara Marittima ( Ancona ). He is represented before the Court by Mrs N. Pelinga , a lawyer practising in Falconara Marittima .

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

On 9 December 1985 the applicant, accused of theft and possession of drugs, was arrested and placed in detention on remand. He was released on 21 January 1986.

In an order of 27 May 1986, the Ancona investigating judge committed the applicant and fifty-eight other persons for trial before the Ancona District Court.

On 2 September 1986 the President of the Ancona District Court scheduled the date of the first hearing for 12 November 1986.

In a judgment of 5 March 1987, filed with the registry on 20 March 1987, the District Court acquitted the applicant for lack of evidence (“ insufficienza di prove ”). A number of his co-accused were sentenced to heavy penalties.

The applicant, together with other fourteen accused, lodged an appeal with the Ancona Court of Appeal in order to obtain a more favourable acquittal formula.

On 17 February 1988 the case-file was forwarded to the Court of Appeal.

The trial hearing, initially scheduled for 16 April 1996, was adjourned until 13 December 1996.

In a judgment of the same day, filed with the registry on 10 January 1997, the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant.

This decision became final on 2 February 1997.

THE LAW

1. The applicant’s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 9 December 1985, on which date the applicant was arrested, and ended on 2 February 1997, when the Court of Appeal’s judgment became final. They therefore lasted eleven years, one month and twenty-four days for two instances.

According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject this allegation on the ground that the case was complex especially by reason of the extensive evidence to be examined. They furthermore observe that, as reasonable doubts could be raised as to the criminal liability of the applicant, the national judges were under a duty to carefully analyse the evidence before them.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by its case-law on the question of “reasonable time”, and having regard to all the material in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.

2. Invoking Article 5 § 1 c) of the Convention, the applicant furthermore alleges that his detention on remand was unlawful.

The Court recalls that according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. When a complaint relates to a continuing situation, the six month period starts to run from the end of the situation concerned (see Agrotexim Hellas S.A. and others v. Greece, application no. 14807/89, Commission decision of 12 February 1992, Decisions and Reports (DR) 72, p. 148, at p. 158). In the present case, the applicant was released on 21 January 1986, and it is from this date that the six month period in Article 35 § 1 started to run. As the present application was introduced on 9 December 1996, this complaint has been introduced too late and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant’s complaint relating to the excessive length of the criminal proceedings;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President