CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 mai 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 6 May 1999 Saccomanno v. Italy - 36719/97 Judgment 12.5.1999 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings: violation In 1990 the applicant was charged with malicious accusation. Eventually, in 1997, he was acquitted on the ground that no offence had been made out. He complained of the length of the proceedings. The period to be taken into account was more than six years and four months for a single level of jurisdiction. Law : The Court noted that the case had not been complex and that although some of the delays could be laid at the applicant’s door, that did not justify the length of the intervals between hearings, nor, above all, the overall length of the proceedings. There had been several long periods of inactivity for which the Italian judicial authorities had been responsible and in respect of which the Government had advanced no possible explanation. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 1,500,000 for costs and expenses, but dismissed his claims in respect of pecuniary damage as it found no causal link between the violation of Article 6 § 1 and the economic loss claimed.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes