CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 avril 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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 22120/93                       by G.P.                       against Italy        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 12 April 1996, 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                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL              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 16 June 1993 by G.P. against Italy and registered on 25 June 1993 under file No. 22120/93;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 30 May      1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on      28 July 1995;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1951 and currently residing in Isola della Scala (Verona). He is a car dealer by profession and owns a fifty per cent share in the car repairer's where he works in Isola della Scala.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        In December 1980 or January 1981, the applicant did certain repairs on a Mercedes on behalf of a customer.        On 16 January 1986, the police reported to the Sondrio Public Prosecutor's Office that on that same day they had seized this Mercedes because its registration number appeared to have been altered.        On 2 May 1986, the police informed the Public Prosecutor that they suspected that the car had been stolen and then received after the applicant had altered its registration number.        On 5 May 1986, the file was sent to the Verona Public Prosecutor's Office.        On 18 July 1986, the Verona Public Prosecutor requested the Isola della Scala Magistrate (Pretore) to question the applicant on her behalf. By an act ("comunicazione giudiziaria") of 2 October 1986, the applicant was informed that preliminary investigations had been opened against him and was summoned to appear before the Magistrate of Isola della Scala on 10 October 1986 in order to be questioned under suspicion of "receiving a stolen Mercedes from B.".        On 10 October, the applicant was interrogated; he claimed that he had done some repairs on the bodywork of the Mercedes, but firmly denied to have altered its registration number.        On 26 January 1987, the Public Prosecutor issued a summon to appear before the Verona court.        By act of 16 February 1989, the applicant was committed for trial together with five coaccused before the Verona court for the hearing of 30 March 1989.        On 30 March 1989, the applicant requested to be allowed to inspect and photograph the car, and also requested an expert opinion ; the court rejected the applicant's requests. On the same day, having noted a difference between the facts as set out in the indictment and as emerged in the course of the hearing, the court sent the case back to the Public Prosecutor's office in order to have the indictment amended.        On 17 October 1990, the applicant was summoned to appear before the Public Prosecutor on 17 November 1990, when he was questioned.        On 28 December 1990, the Sondrio police filed with the Public Prosecutor's office, at the latter's request, copy of the expert opinion carried out on the car in the course of the civil proceedings meanwhile instituted against the applicant and his coaccused by the last owner of the car before the Sondrio court.        On 15 April 1991, the Public Prosecutor requested the Investigating Judge that the applicant be charged with "receiving a stolen Mercedes from an unidentified person" and committed for trial.        By an act of 10 June 1991, the applicant was committed for trial before the Verona court.        On 6 November 1991, the Verona court annulled the applicant's committal for trial on the ground of a procedural informality due to the entering into force, on 24 October 1989, of the new code of criminal procedure, and sent the case back to the Public Prosecutor's office.        On 7 November 1991, the applicant renewed his request to be allowed to inspect the car; the following day, his request was upheld.        On 5 December 1991, the applicant inspected the car in the presence of a policeman. Photographs were taken of the repairs done by the applicant.        On 9 January 1992, the applicant filed with the court the description of the results of the inspection and the relevant photographs.        On 23 January 1992, the Public Prosecutor requested the Judge for the Preliminary Hearing ("Giudice dell'Udienza preliminare") that the applicant be committed for trial.        On 20 February 1992, the applicant was summoned to appear before the Judge for the Preliminary Hearing on 7 April 1992.        At the hearing of 7 April 1992, the applicant was granted a time- limit to 25 June 1992 for a private expert opinion on the car.        At the hearing of 25 June 1992, the private expert opinion was filed with the court. Two experts called by the Public Prosecutor were heard; after examining the private expert opinion, they confirmed the applicant's description of the repairs he had done on the car. The applicant filed a request for a speedy trial. By a judgment on the same day, he was acquitted together with the coaccused.        The judgment was filed with the register on 25 January 1993 and became final on 2 March 1993.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him for receiving a stolen car exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   2.    The applicant also argues that the proceedings were unfair in that for a long time he was denied the possibility of inspecting the car and describing the repairs he had done thereon, which would have discharged him from the beginning. He alleges a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in this respect.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 16 June 1993 and registered on 25 June 1993.        On 28 February 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 30 May 1995.   The applicant replied on 28 July 1995.   THE LAW        The applicant complains about the length and fairness of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.        He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:        "In the determination of (...) any criminal charge against him,      everybody is entitled to a fair (...) hearing within a reasonable      time (...)"   a)    As regards the length of the proceedings, the Commission notes that they started on 2 October 1986 with the official notification to the applicant that preliminary investigations against him had been started (see Eur. Court H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 24, para. 42), and ended on 2 March 1993, when the applicant's acquittal became final. The overall length is thus six years and five months.        The Government argue that the delays in the proceedings are mainly due to the complexity of the procedure and to the entering into force in 1989 of the new code of criminal procedure; they refer to the Neumeister case, where the Court found that the concern for speed cannot dispense the judges from taking every measure likely to throw light on the truth or falsehood of the charges, and maintain that in the present case the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be regarded as being unreasonable.        The applicant contends that the only delay attributable to the entering into force of the new code is that between 15 April 1991 and 6 November 1991 (when the applicant's committal for trial was annulled on the ground of a procedural informality). He argues that the excessive length is due to the conduct of the judicial authorities, namely to their refusal to allow the applicant to inspect the car at the beginning of the preliminary investigations, which would have discharged him already in 1989.        The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention 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 a thorough examination of this complaint is required, both as to the law and as to the facts.   b)    The applicant further alleges that the fact that the judicial authorities prevented him from inspecting the car immediately after the investigations were started, which would have discharged him from the beginning, rendered the proceedings unfair in breach of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        However, the Commission notes that the applicant was acquitted; it recalls its constant case-law to the effect that an acquitted defendant cannot claim to be a victim of violations of the Conventions which allegedly took place in the course of the proceedings as a result of which he was acquitted (see No. 8083/77, Dec. 13.3.80, D.R. 19, p. 223).        It follows that the applicant cannot claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of a violation of the above proceedings; this part of the application is therefore manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the complaint related to the length of the      proceedings, without prejudging the merits of the case;        DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                         (C.L. ROZAKIS)