CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 28 février 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                            FIRST CHAMBER                        Application No. 22421/93                          Annunziata Palermiti                                 against                                  Italy                        REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 28 February 1996)                            TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                 Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 9-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 12-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3     III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 17-27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    Complaint declared admissible           (para. 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    Point at issue           (para. 18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        C.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 19-26). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4             1.    The period to be taken into consideration                (para. 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4             2.    Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings                (paras. 21-26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4             CONCLUSION           (para. 27). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5     APPENDIX   :     DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . .6     I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicant is an Italian citizen, born in 1925 and residing in Reggio Calabria.   She was represented before the Commission by Mr. Domenico Callea.   3.    The application is directed against Italy.   The respondent Government were represented by Mr. Umberto Leanza, Head of the Diplomatic Legal Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.    The case concerns a complaint about the length of criminal proceedings in respect of charges of unauthorized building and unlawful removal of official seals.   The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 18 May 1993 and registered on 5 August 1993.   6.    On 28 February 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 30 May 1995.   The applicant replied on 16 June 1995.   8.    On 6 September 1995 the Commission declared the application admissible.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   C.    The present Report   9.    The Commission (First Chamber), having found that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement pursuant to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be effected, has drawn up the present report in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:           Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS, President           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                E. KONSTANTINOV                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                K. HERNDL   10.   The text of this Report was adopted on 28 February 1996 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   11.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   12.   By act ("ordine di comparizione") of 22 October 1987, notified on 30 October 1987, the applicant was summoned to appear before the Public Prosecutor of Reggio Calabria on 16 November 1987, in order to be interrogated.   She was charged with unauthorized building and unlawful removal of official seals ("violazione di sigilli").   13.   These proceedings were connected with a previous set of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant on similar charges and which came to an end by judgment of 8 July 1986 with the applicant's conviction by the Reggio Calabria magistrate ("Pretore").   14.   On 16 November 1987, the applicant was interrogated by the Public Prosecutor in her counsel's presence.   15.   On 1 October 1988, the Public Prosecutor requested that the applicant be committed for trial on charges of unauthorized building and unlawful removal of official seals.   16.   By judgment of 7 February 1994, the Reggio Calabria Court dismissed the first charge as time-barred and the second following an amnesty.     III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaint declared admissible   17.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against her.   B.    Point at issue   18.   The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings against the applicant exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   C.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   19.   The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides as follows:        "In the determination (...) of any criminal charge against him,      everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing within a reasonable time      by [a] tribunal (...)."        1.    The period to be taken into consideration   20.   The period to be taken into consideration began on 30 October 1987, when the applicant was first summoned to appear before the Public Prosecutor of Reggio Calabria, and ended on 7 February 1994, when the Reggio Calabria court dismissed the first charge as time-barred and the second following an amnesty.   The period under consideration is therefore six years, three months and eight days.        2.    Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings   21.   The Commission recalls that:        "The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings is to be      assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the      case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's      case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the      applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities ..."      (Eur. Court H.R., Kemmache judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A      no. 218, p. 27, para. 60).   22.   The Government disclaim any responsibility on the part of the judicial authorities by invoking the difficult situation faced by the Reggio Calabria court as a result of the exceptional backlog of cases, as well as the lack of sufficient staff to deal with such a situation.   23.   The applicant submits in this regard that it was for the Italian authorities to find a solution to the aforementioned problems.   24.   The Commission recalls that the Contracting States are under a duty to organise their legal systems so as to enable the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1, (Art. 6-1) including that of a trial within a "reasonable time" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Baggetta judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119-B, p. 32, par. 23).   25.   The Commission notes that the Reggio Calabria court took over five years from the date when the Public Prosecutor requested that the applicant be committed for trial to deliver its judgment (1 October 1988 to 7 February 1994).   The Commission has considered the submissions of the parties in this respect, and finds that this delay, which is attributable to the competent authorities, is not convincingly explained by the Government.   26.   In light of the criteria and circumstances of the case described above, the Commission considers that the length of the proceedings in this case, being over six years and three months, has not been justified by the Government.   Consequently the Commission finds that the reasonable time referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention has been exceeded.          CONCLUSION   27.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.     Secretary to the First Chamber      President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                          (C.L. ROZAKIS)