CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 décembre 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9AB0095D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:134.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sAC4FA5ED { width:7.01pt; display:inline-block } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFEDB7BA6 { width:10.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA456029A { width:14.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF2942DD0 { width:213.57pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application No. 35742/97 by Vincenzo LEDONNE against Italy   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 1   December   1998 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   C. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   M. Fischbach,   Mr   B. Conforti,   Mr   P. Lorenzen,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Mr   A. Baka,   Mr   E. Levits, Judges ,   with   Mr   E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ;   Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 4 April 1997 by Vincenzo Ledonne against Italy and registered on 23 April 1997 under file No. 35742/97;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;   Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 22 May 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 11 June 1998;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:           THE FACTS   The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1939 and resident in Cosenza.   He is represented before the Court by Mr Domenico Callea, a lawyer practising in Reggio Calabria.   The proceedings in question in the present case concern the criminal charge of libel brought against the applicant.   The following is a summary of the proceedings:     On 5 December 1990, Mr B. requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the applicant for libel.     On 18 September 1991, the Locri (Reggio Calabria) Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant of the charge brought against him and requested him to appear on 10 October 1991 in order to be questioned.     On 18 June 1992, the Locri Public Prosecutor summoned the applicant to appear before the Bianco (Reggio Calabria) Magistrate at a hearing on 27 April 1993. This summons was served on the applicant on 8 January 1993.     On 27 April 1993, the applicant applied for the summons to be declared null and void on the ground that it had not been served on the lawyer of his choice. In an order of the same day, the Bianco Magistrate ordered that a fresh summons be served. On 18   November 1993, the applicant objected that the Bianco authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with the case.     In a judgment of the same day, filed with the registry on 2   December 1993, the Bianco Magistrate declared that the case was outside its territorial jurisdiction and ordered the file to be forwarded to the Cosenza Magistrate.     On 31 August 1994, the Cosenza investigating judge summoned the applicant to appear before the Cosenza Magistrate at a hearing on 4 April 1995.     On that date, the proceedings were adjourned to 16 May 1995 at the applicant’s request. On 16 May 1995, the proceedings were postponed to 19 September 1995 because the lawyers of the Cosenza Bar Association were on strike.     On 24 October 1995, the applicant requested for the second time that the summons be declared null and void on the ground that it had not been served on the lawyer of his choice. In an order of the same day, the Cosenza Magistrate ordered that a fresh summons be served and scheduled a hearing for 2   February 1996, at which the proceedings were adjourned to 18 June 1996 at the applicant’s request. On 18 June and 13 December 1996, evidence from the applicant and some witnesses was taken.   On 21 February 1997, the parties presented their final pleadings.     In a judgment of the same day, filed with the court registry on 26   February 1997, the Cosenza Magistrate acquitted the applicant.   COMPLAINT   The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings and invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   PROCEDURE   On 4 March 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government, and invited them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.   The Government submitted their observations on 22 May 1998, to which the applicant replied on 11 June 1998.     By virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 November 1998, the application shall thereafter be examined by the European Court of Human Rights.   THE LAW   The applicant's complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 18 September 1991, when the Locri Public Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant of the charge brought against him, and ended on 26   February 1997, when the Cosenza Magistrate’s judgment was filed with the court registry .     The Government observe that several hearings before the Cosenza Magistrate were adjourned at the applicant’s request and because of the lawyers’ strike. Moreover, far from helping to expedite the proceedings, the applicant resorted to actions likely to delay matters - notably requesting on two occasions that the summons be declared null and void and contesting the jurisdiction of the Bianco Magistrate.   According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings - a period of five years, five months and eight days - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He considers that an accused person cannot be blamed for having made full use of the remedies available under domestic law and recalls that in criminal proceedings applicants are not expected to co-operate actively with the judicial authorities.   The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law 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 an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.   For these reasons, unanimously, the Court   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.         Erik Fribergh             Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President