Cilione v. Italy



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27240/95

by Demetrico CILIONE

against Italy

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 16 April 1998, the following members being present:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

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 5 April 1995 by

Demetrio CILIONE against Italy and registered on 3 May 1995 under file

No. 27240/95;

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

8 September 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 27 September 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1942 and residing

in Reggio Calabria. Before the Commission, he is represented by

Mr Domenico Callea, lawyer in Reggio Calabria.

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

summarised as follows.

On 5 October 1988 the applicant was interrogated by the Reggio

Calabria Public Prosecutor about facts dating back to 25 September

1987.

On 20 December 1988 the Public Prosecutor requested that the

applicant be summoned to appear before the Reggio Calabria Court on

charges inter alia of threats.

By an act dated 3 January 1994, the Presiding Judge of the Reggio

Calabria Court summoned the applicant to appear before the Court at the

hearing of 7 February 1994.

At this hearing, both the Public Prosecutor and the applicant

requested that all charges be dropped on the ground of an amnesty of

12 April 1990.

By a judgment of 14 November 1994, the Reggio Calabria Court

dropped all charges against the applicant. The judgment became final

on 15 December 1994.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 5 April 1995 and registered on

3 May 1995 .

On 21 May 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

8 September 1997. The applicant replied on 29 September 1997.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted

against him. He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention which insofar as relevant reads as follows:

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

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

...". The Commission observes that the proceedings at issue began

on 5 October 1988 when the applicant was interrogated by the Public

Prosecutor of Reggio Calabria and ended on 15 December 1994 when the

judgment delivered by the Court of Reggio Calabria, dropping all

charges against the applicant, became final. The overall length of the

proceedings is thus about six years and two months.

The respondent Government submit as justification for the delays

in the proceedings the excessive work-load in the relevant criminal

courts and the fact that priority is normally given to cases where the

accused is in detention; furthermore in this case an amnesty applicable

to the applicant's case had in the meantime intervened. The applicant

maintains that the length of the proceedings brought against him was

excessive.

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 competent authorities), 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 THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

merits of the case.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber