CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2025

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s36811D2E { margin-top:20pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 31 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 45550/16 Alessandra D’ARVIA against Italy lodged on 7 July 2016 communicated on 10 March 2025 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. The applicant was arrested on 18 February 2008 and convicted by the tribunal of Rome on 7 March 2008. Upon appeal, the offence was declared time-barred by a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Rome, which became final on 11 January 2016. The applicant did not complain of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings before the competent “Pinto” court because she had not file a request for acceleration of the proceedings ( istanza di accelerazione ) and thus was not eligible resort to the remedy provided in the “Pinto Act” for the excessive length of proceedings (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). 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, having regard to the Constitutional Court’s acknowledgement of the unconstitutional nature of the requirement imposed by Article 2 § 2 quinquies , letter (e), of Law no. 89 of 24   March   2001 (judgment no. 169 of 10 July 2019). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the criminal proceeding in the present case 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 her disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, an effective domestic remedy through which she could have made her complaint based on the excessive length of the procedure?