CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 octobre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s908FE487 { width:3.32pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .sEA111250 { width:16.65pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 41094/98 by Rocco Sandro GIANNANGELI against Italy     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 21 October 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   C. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   M. Fischbach,   Mr   B. Conforti,   Mr   P. Lorenzen,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Mr   A.B. Baka,   Mr   E. Levits, judges ,     and   Mr   E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ;     Having regard to the application introduced on 30 December 1997 and registered on 4   May 1998;     Having deliberated, decides as follows:   THE FACTS     The applicant is an Italian national born in 1959 and residing in Sulmona (L'Aquila). Before the Court, he is represented by Mr Luciano Rossi and Mr Mario Antonio Rossi, two lawyers practising in L'Aquila.   On 16 February 1991 the applicant endorsed a cheque payable to X, who on 20   February 1991 presented it to a Bank in order to cash it. As the relevant chequebook had previously been stolen from Y, the bank informed the police which seized the cheque and reported the incident to the Public Prosecutor's Office attached to the Sulmona Magistrates' Court.     On 27 February 1991 the Public Prosecutor requested the applicant's personal data from the Sulmona Municipality. On 13 March 1991 he requested the Sulmona Magistrate to indicate the date on which the applicant could be summoned to appear. On 21 May 1991 the Magistrate informed the Prosecutor's Office that an hearing could be scheduled for 9   December 1993.     On 10 November 1992 the Public Prosecutor summoned the applicant to appear before the Sulmona Magistrate on 9 December 1993 on charges of money laundering, forgery and fraud.     On 9 December 1993 the Magistrate severed the proceedings concerning the first accusation from those concerning the two others. By a decision of the same day, he discontinued the latter proceedings for lack of a formal criminal complaint against the applicant. He heard a witness in connection with the first charge and adjourned the proceedings until 16 June 1994. The hearing of 16 June 1994 was postponed to 1 March 1995, due to a lawyers' strike between 13 June and 18 June 1994. The case was then re-listed for 2 March 1995. However, this hearing was postponed to 15   February 1996, due to a legitimate impediment of the applicant's lawyer. The case was then re-listed for 23 January 1997. At this hearing, however, the Magistrate adjourned the proceedings until 10 July 1997, due to excessive workload. The trial was held on 10 July 1997, but was adjourned until 20   November 1997 in order to hear a witness who failed to appear.     By a judgment delivered on 20 November 1997 and filed with the Registry on 27   November 1997, the Magistrate acquitted the applicant.   THE LAW     The applicant's complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 10 November 1992 and ended on 27 November 1997 .     According to the applicant, the overall duration of the proceedings - a period of five years and seventeen days - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government disputed this claim.     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