Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 126

January 2010

Previti v. Italy (dec.) - 45291/06

Decision 8.12.2009 [Section II]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Criticism by members of national legal service of draft legislation applicable to pending proceedings: inadmissible

Facts – The applicant was a lawyer and a prominent figure in national politics. In 1995, in the context of a widely-publicised case concerning the corporate control of a major chemicals group, IMI/SIR, the applicant was charged with judicial bribery. In November 1999 he and seven co-accused were committed to stand trial before the Criminal Court. In May 2006 the Court of Cassation sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.

Law – Article 6 § 1: At the time the accusations of judicial bribery were made against him the applicant, a former Minister, had been a Member of Parliament and a leading figure in a political party. In view of the seriousness of the offences of which he stood accused it had been inevitable, in a democratic society, that his trial would attract media and public attention. The problems encountered by the trial and, in particular, the enactment of laws such as the law concerning letters of request had also been bound to intensify interest in the IMI/SIR criminal proceedings among the media and the public. Furthermore, the press was entitled to comment, at times in harsh terms, on a sensitive case concerning a prominent public figure, and the applicant had been convicted following adversarial proceedings. The Court took note of the statements made to the press by a number of members of the national legal service and the articles published in a magazine, and also of the paper published by the National Association of Judges and Prosecutors. These documents criticised the political climate in which the trial had taken place, the legislative reforms proposed by the Government and the applicant’s defence strategy, but did not make any pronouncements as to the applicant’s guilt. The Association of Judges and Prosecutors, again without discussing whether or not the applicant had committed the offences in question, had also expressed opposition to the idea that an accused should have access to a list of members of the national legal service espousing particular views. The fact that, in accordance with the principles of democracy and pluralism, some individuals or groups within the national legal service, in their capacity as legal experts, expressed reservations or criticism concerning draft Government legislation was not capable of adversely affecting the fairness of the judicial proceedings to which that legislation might apply. Moreover, the courts hearing the applicant’s case had been made up entirely of professional judges whose experience and training enabled them to rise above external influences. It had also been legitimate for judges not involved in hearing the case to comment on the defence strategy of a leading public figure which had been widely reported on and discussed in the media. Accordingly, the Court was unable to find that the comments made in the context of the IMI/SIR proceedings had reduced the applicant’s chances of receiving a fair trial.

Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

The Court also declared inadmissible the applicant’s other complaints under Articles 6 § 1, 7 and 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes