SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 34204/96

by G.S.

against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section) sitting on 27 April 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C. Rozakis, President ,

Mr M. Fischbach,

Mr B. Conforti,

Mr G. Bonello,

Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,

Mr A.B. Baka,

Mr E. Levits, Judges ,

with Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 22 October 1996 by G.S. against Italy and registered on 17 December 1996 under file no. 34204/96;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 18 February 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 1 March 1999;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1926 and living in Mestre (Venice).

The following is a summary of the proceedings brought against the applicant.

On 25 March 1982 G.N. filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for extortion.

a) The first set of proceedings

On 28 June 1982 the applicant was interrogated by the Public Prosecutor attached to the Venice District Court.

On 8 August 1984 the Public Prosecutor requested the opening of criminal proceedings against the applicant.

On 10 October 1984 the Judge for the Preliminary Investigations summoned the applicant to appear before him on 20 November 1984, date on which the applicant was interrogated.

On 8 March 1985 the applicant was committed for trial before the Venice District Court. The first hearing was fixed at 10 December 1991 by a decision of 5 October 1991. The hearing however was postponed, due to a legitimate impediment of the applicant’s lawyer, first to 10 January 1992 and subsequently to 24 June 1992.

The proceedings were then adjourned until 4 December 1992 with a view to the joinder with another set of proceedings pending against the applicant (see below).

b) The second set of proceedings

On 14 October 1982 G.T. filed another criminal complaint against the applicant for extortion, in connection with other facts, following which, on 27 May 1983, the applicant was committed for trial before the Venice District Court on charge of extortion. The applicant was to be tried by means of a "summary procedure" (giudizio direttissimo).

The hearing of 7 July 1983 was postponed, due to the absence of the injured party.

By an act dated 22 October 1983, the Presiding Judge of the Venice District Court summoned the applicant to appear before the court at the hearing of 16 January 1984.

At this hearing the court considered that it would be necessary to seek an expert opinion of the applicant’s signature, which could not be done in the course of a "summary procedure". Therefore the court decided that the case should continue as ordinary proceedings and sent it to the judge for preliminary investigations’ office.

On 5 June 1985, at the outcome of the investigations, the applicant was committed for trial before the Venice District Court.

The first hearing was fixed at 5 July 1991.

On 4 December 1992 the Venice District Court joined the two sets of proceedings pending against the applicant, found him guilty of extortion and sentenced him to two years and four months’ imprisonment, while granting him pardon (condono della pena). The judgment was filed with the registry on 21 December 1992.

On 10 February 1993 the applicant appealed to the Venice Court of Appeal. The case-file was forwarded to the Court of Appeal on 29 March 1993.

By an act of 8 August 1996, the applicant was summoned to appear before the court of appeal at the first hearing on 18 October 1996.

On 18 October 1996 the Venice Court of Appeal ruled that the proceedings be discontinued, the offence being time-barred. This decision was filed with the court’s registry on 12 November 1996.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. He further invokes Article 6 § 2 and alleges a breach of the presumption of innocence insofar as he had to wait approximately four years before the first-instance judgment whereby he had been convicted was reversed on appeal.

PROCEDURE

On 22 October 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to give notice of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the respondent Government, and invited them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.

On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.

The Government submitted their observations on 18 February 1999 after one extension of the time-limit, to which the applicant replied on 1 March 1999.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaints relate to the length of the proceedings in question. The first set of proceedings began on 28 June 1982, when the applicant was interrogated by the Public Prosecutor and the second at the latest on 27 May 1983 with the applicant’s committal for trial. They both ended on 12 November 1996 when the Venice Court of Appeal’s decision that the proceedings be discontinued was filed with the registry.

According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings – two periods of 14 years, 9 months and 15 days and of 13 years, 5 months and 16 days respectively – is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government refute the allegation.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “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 an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.

For these reasons, unanimously, the Court

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President