CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 28 August 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24778/16 Giuseppe ROSCIANO against Italy lodged on 23 April 2016 communicated on 11 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the effectiveness of the remedy in domestic law to complain about the excessive length of criminal proceedings before the Potenza tribunal (R.G. 891/2008) which started on 7 September 2007 and ended on 23 February 2015. Article 2 § 2 quinquies , letter e), of Law no. 89 of 24   March   2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, as amended by Law no. 134 of 7   August 2012, established for parties to criminal proceedings to file a request for acceleration of the proceedings ( istanza di accelerazione ) in order to be, later on, eligible to resort to the remedy provided in the “Pinto Act” for the excessive length of proceedings. Having regard to the conclusions of the Court of Cassation on the said requirement in other judgments (e.g., no. 1841 of 25 January 2018), the Constitutional Court acknowledged the unconstitutional nature of the requirement imposed by Article 2 § 2 quinquies , letter e), of Law no. 89 of 24   March 2001 (see judgment no. 169 of 10 July 2019). Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     In view of the admissibility condition, established in Article 2 § 2 quinquies , letter e), of Law no. 89 of 24   March   2001, did the applicant have at his disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, an effective domestic remedy through which he could have made his complaint based on the excessive length of the procedure?