CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 septembre 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s894696E7 { width:4pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADF7EA2 { width:10.65pt; display:inline-block } .s59948A80 { width:7.96pt; display:inline-block } AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF             Application No. 34469/97         by Vincenzo GATTO         against Italy       The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 9 September 1998, the following members being present:       MM   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President       N. BRATZA       E. BUSUTTIL       A. WEITZEL       C.L. ROZAKIS     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       B. MARXER       B. CONFORTI       I. BÉKÉS       G. RESS       A. PERENIČ       C. BÎRSAN       K. HERNDL       M. VILA AMIGÓ     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 20 December 1996 by Vincenzo GATTO against Italy and registered on 13 January 1997 under file No. 34469/97;     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows:         THE FACTS     The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1948 and residing in Modena. Before the Commission, he is represented by Mr Dante Pola, a lawyer practising in Modena.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     The applicant was arrested on 20 October 1983 pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the Reggio Emilia Public Prosecutor on charges of having received stolen goods.     On 5 November 1983, the applicant was released.     On 24 August 1984, the Reggio Emilia investigating judge declared his lack of jurisdiction and sent the case to the Milan Public Prosecutor.     On 23 May 1990, the applicant was committed for trial before the Milan Court together with nine coaccused.     The first hearing was set for 26 June 1995.     By a judgment of 16 July 1996, filed with the Registry on 24 July 1996, the Milan Court acquitted the applicant.     COMPLAINTS   1.   The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.   2.   The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1 and 3 that his detention on remand was unlawful and lasted for an unreasonably long time.     THE LAW   1.   The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.     The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.   2.   The applicant complains that his detention on remand was unlawful and lasted for an unreasonably long time. He invokes Article 5 paras. 1 and 3 of the Convention.     However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts submitted by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions. The Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.     The Commission observes that in the instant case, the applicant's detention on remand ended on 5 November 1983, while the application was introduced on 20 December 1996, which is more than six months after this date.     This part of the application is therefore time-barred and must be rejected pursuant to Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 of the Convention.     For these reasons, the Commission     DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings;     unanimously,   DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.           M.F. BUQUICCHIO              M.P. PELLONPÄÄ      Secretary                         President         to the First Chamber                                   of the First Chamber