CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 septembre 1997

.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. 29530/95                     by Antonio ROSSI                     against Italy        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 10 September 1997, the following members being present:             Mrs. J. LIDDY, President           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS                L. LOUCAIDES                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                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 4 November 1995 by Antonio ROSSI against Italy and registered on 12 December 1995 under file No. 29530/95;        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      20 January 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 4 March 1997;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Italian national born in 1952 and currently residing in Avellino. Before the Commission, the applicant is represented by Mr. Giuseppe Argenio, a lawyer practising in Avellino.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        On 11 June 1986 a Public Notary reported to the Avellino Magistrate that the applicant had issued two uncovered cheques; preliminary investigations against the applicant were thus started and on 3 July 1986 transferred to the Naples Magistrate for reasons of competence.        On 21 October 1986 the applicant filed with this Magistrate a request that his case be dealt with promptly.        On 28 October 1986 the Naples Magistrate summoned the applicant to appear before him at the hearing of 7 April 1987. By a judgment delivered on the same day and filed with the Registry on 21 April 1987, the Magistrate convicted the applicant of having issued uncovered cheques and sentenced him inter alia to two months' imprisonment.        On 7 April 1987, the applicant lodged an appeal before the Naples Court of Appeal.        On 25 May 1989, he filed a request that his case be dealt with promptly.        The first hearing before the Court of Appeal, fixed on 25 January 1990, was adjourned.        On 30 January 1990 the applicant declared that he did not intend to benefit from an amnesty and requested that the charges against him be dropped or, alternatively, that his case be dealt with promptly.        On 10 April 1990, the Court of Appeal, having noted that the applicant's counsel had not been informed of the date of the hearing, decided to adjourn the proceedings.        On 12 April 1990 the applicant requested again that his case be dealt with promptly.        On 26 May 1990 he reiterated that he did not intend to benefit from the amnesty.        By order of 10 July 1990, the Court of Appeal summoned certain witnesses and postponed the case until 25 October 1990. The hearing of 13 November was adjourned because on that day lawyers practising in the Naples District were on strike.        By a judgment delivered on 31 January 1991 and filed with the Registry on 5 February 1991, the Naples Court of Appeal annulled the judgment of the Naples Magistrate and held that the charges against the applicant had to be dismissed because of the amnesty.        On 2 February 1991, the applicant appealed on points of law against this judgment. By a judgment delivered on 7 May 1992 and filed with the Registry on 17 June 1992, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and referred the case back before another chamber of the Naples Court of Appeal.        In the subsequent proceedings, the hearings of 16 March and 26 June 1993 were adjourned at the applicant's request, while the hearings of 3 December 1993 and 27 May 1994 were postponed because on those days lawyers practising in the Naples District were on strike.        By a judgment delivered on 12 October 1994 and filed with the Registry on 13 October 1994, the Naples Court of Appeal held that the charges against the applicant were time-barred.        On 5 January 1995 the applicant appealed on points of law against this judgment; by a judgment of 9 May 1995, filed with the Registry on 22 July 1995, the Court of Cassation quashed the impugned judgment and acquitted the applicant.   COMPLAINT        The applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him on charges of having issued uncovered cheques exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 4 November 1995 and registered on 12 December 1995.        On 16 October 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 20 January 1997. The applicant replied on 4 March 1997.     THE LAW        The applicant complains about the length 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 ... hearing within a      reasonable time ...".        The Commission notes that proceedings started at the latest on 21 October 1986, when the applicant filed with the Naples Magistrate a request that his case be dealt with promptly, and ended on 9 May 1995, when the applicant's acquittal became final. The overall length is thus eight years, six month and eighteen days for five degrees of jurisdiction.          The Government observe that there were no periods of stand still during the investigations. They also point out that the first instance proceedings have been dealt with speedily. As to the two sets of proceedings before the Naples Court of Appeal, the Government maintain that their length is due to the conduct of the applicant, who failed to correctly identify the witnesses which, according to the Government, were examined on his behalf. Moreover, they point out that the applicant requested the adjournment of the hearings of 25 January and 25 October 1990. They argue that in view of all the circumstances of the present case, the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be regarded as being unreasonable.        The applicant argues that his case was a very simple one and contends that the excessive length is due to the conduct of the judicial authorities. He furthermore observes that he applied for the hearing to be adjourned only twice - namely on 16 March and 26 June 1993 - for serious reasons of health and recalls that on several occasions he asked for his case be dealt with promptly. He finally notes that the witnesses to which the Government make reference in their observations have not been examined on his behalf, but were summoned on the Court's of Appeal own motion.        The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of "reasonable time", and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,          DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the      merits of the case.          M.F. BUQUICCHIO                          J. LIDDY         Secretary                             President    to the First Chamber                  of the First Chamber