CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     525   24.10.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PISANO v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered judgment at a public hearing in the case of Pisano v. Italy (application no. 36732/97). The Court decided unanimously   ● to refuse the Government’s request for a review of the decision of the panel of the Grand Chamber; ● to dismiss the Government’s plea of inadmissibility; ● to strike the application out of its list of cases; ● to award the applicant 5,000 euros for costs and expenses under Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court.     1.     Principal facts   Massimo Pisano, an Italian national born in 1960, was sentenced with final effect to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife. He was subsequently acquitted following a retrial, which he had sought after he had applied to the Court. The case concerns the conduct of the initial trial.   The applicant was accused of murdering his wife, who had been killed on 4 August 1993. During the investigation, he stated that at the time of the offence he had been at the land registry filing certain documents. He described a person who had been at the land registry at the same time, and gave details of the enquiry which the person had made.   During the trial, the applicant asked to have a Mr B. summoned and examined as a witness for the defence. He asserted that Mr B. was the person who had been at the land registry at the same time as him and would be able to confirm his alibi. The Rome Assize Court refused his request and, in a judgment of 29 November 1994, sentenced him to life imprisonment, noting that he had not established that he had actually gone to the land registry. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Assize Court of Appeal and by the Court of Cassation.   On 30 July 1999 the applicant applied to the Perugia Court of Appeal for a retrial, but did not inform the Court of that fact until the proceedings before the Chamber had ended. The Court of Appeal held a retrial and acquitted the applicant after considering several pieces of evidence, including the examination of Mr B., who confirmed the applicant’s statements. In a judgment of 26 September 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld that decision.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 October 1996 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 6 July 1999, and on 27 July 2000 the Court delivered a Chamber judgment (Second Section) in which it held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. On 26 October 2000 the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 (referral to the Grand Chamber) and on 13 December 2000 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request.   Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of seventeen judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Benedetto Conforti (Italian), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Lucius Caflisch [1] (Swiss), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair and, in particular, that the courts had refused to call a witness on his behalf.   Decision of the Court   The Government’s request for a review of the decision of the panel of the Grand Chamber   The Grand Chamber noted that neither the Convention nor the Rules of Court empowered it to review a decision by the panel to accept a request for a rehearing. Furthermore, under Article 43 § 3 of the Convention, the Grand Chamber had no option but to examine a case once the panel had accepted a request for a rehearing. When the panel accepted such a request, it was the entire “case”, in so far as it had been declared admissible, that was automatically referred to the Grand Chamber, which in principle decided the case by means of a new judgment. Where appropriate, the Grand Chamber could examine issues relating to the admissibility of the application. It could also terminate the proceedings by a means other than a judgment on the merits, for example by approving a friendly settlement or striking the application out of the list of cases. The Grand Chamber had to assess the facts as they appeared at the time of its decision by applying the appropriate legal solution. Once a case was referred to it, the Grand Chamber could accordingly employ the full range of judicial powers conferred on the Court. It therefore refused the Government’s request for a review of the decision of the panel of five judges.   Consequences of the applicant’s subsequent acquittal   The Government’s preliminary objection: By Article 35 § 4 of the Convention, the Court could reject an application it considered inadmissible “at any stage of the proceedings”. In the present case it noted that the applicant had been entitled to complain of the criminal proceedings in issue both at the time when he had lodged his application and when the Chamber had declared it admissible. He had exhausted domestic remedies and his complaints had not been manifestly ill-founded. Admittedly, he had failed to inform the Court in good time that he had applied for a retrial but, according to the Court’s case-law, extraordinary proceedings of that kind did not constitute a remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.   In spite of the applicant’s acquittal after the retrial, at which the witness B. had given evidence, the Italian courts had not found a violation of the Convention as regards the failure to examine B. during the initial trial. Accordingly, the Court could not declare the application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant could no longer claim to be the victim of the alleged violation. The Court therefore dismissed the Government’s plea of inadmissibility.   Application of Article 37 (striking out applications) of the Convention: Having regard to the new information brought to its attention and to the parties’ observations, the Court considered that the matter in issue had been resolved. It noted that the applicant’s conviction had been quashed by means of domestic remedies and no longer had any legal force. The applicant’s main complaint, concerning the failure to examine a witness, had also been remedied, as the witness had given evidence at the retrial. Lastly, even supposing the Court were to consider the merits of the application and to find that there had been a violation of the Convention in the present case, supervision of the execution of the judgment could no longer pursue the aim of having the proceedings reopened.   The Court was aware that the State had started enforcing the applicant’s sentence, but noted that under Article 643 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he was entitled to seek compensation from the State for his conviction. The compensation due to him on that account was, in the Court’s opinion, indissociable from any compensation he might claim in the event of a finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.   The Court was also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols did not require it to continue the examination of the application. Its task was to establish whether there had been a violation in the case before it, and not to examine whether the Italian legal system complied with the Convention.   The Court therefore held that the matter had been resolved and decided to strike the case out of the list.   Judge Rozakis, joined by Judge Ress, expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.