(2004/C58E/078) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1355/03
byMaurizioTurco(NI)totheCommission
(10April2003)
Subject:VincenzoMitidieri,heldinpreventivecustodyfor12monthsonchargesofheadingamafia-type
organisationandacquittedforlackofevidence,butstillbeingheld
After12monthsofpreventivecustodyunderspecialarrangements(41a)intheprisonatTerni,oncharges
ofbelonging toamafia-type criminal organisation,VincenzoMitidieri wasacquitted bythe CourtofMatera for ‘lack of evidence’. Although he appealed to the Minister of Justice to have the specialarrangementsrevoked,hehasstillnotreceivedananswerandisstillbeingheldunderthosearrangements.
TheprovisionsofItalianLawNo279of23December2002state:
(a) inArticle2.2e,‘TheCourt,within10daysofreceivingthecomplaint(…)shalldecideincamera(…)
whether the preconditionsforadopting the provisionexist and whether the contentsthereof areconsistent (…)’. By 31December 2002 the approximately 700 prisoners held under specialarrangements /dash including Mr Mitidieri /dash received the implementing decree, a number of themappealedwithinthespecifieddeadlineof10days,butthereisnoindicationofanydecreebeingdiscussedbythesupervisorycourtswithinthedeadlineof10days,whereasithasbeenreportedthat
hearingsareduetobeheldafter90/180days;
(b) inArticle2c.2,paragraph2a,thattheimplementingdecrees‘shallbeadoptedbyvirtueofadecree
justifiedbytheMinisterofJustice’.Astohowthejustificationistobeendorsed,theformerUnder-secretary for Justice, Giuseppe Ayala said, at the 21st sitting of the ‘parliamentary committee ofinquiryonthephenomenonofmafiaorsimilarcriminalorganisations’heldon9July2002,‘(…)Imusthavesignedhundredsofprovisions,butjustificationsforextending deadlinesbelongtothe
categoryofprovisionswhicharesignedblindfold(itisanautomaticactionwhichwecanallcarryout
anditcanbedonebetterblindfold).Isaythiswithoutinanywaymeaningtocriticisethebodieswhichweresometimescalledupontoprovideevidence,butbecausesometimesitisalmosta’probatiodiabolica‘’(negativeproofimpossibletoprovide);
(c) inArticle1,c.1,paragraph(a),thatasregardstheprisoners‘(…)jobsoutside,authorisationsand
alternativestodetention(…)maybegrantedonlyincaseswheredetaineesandprisonerscollaborate
withthejudiciary’apracticewhichisdefinedastortureinUNandCouncilofEuropeconventions.
InviewofArticles6and7oftheEUTreaty,cantheCommissionsaywhetherithasanyinstrumentsatits
disposaland,ifso,which,tomonitorcompliancewiththosearticles,orwhatinternalproceduresareenvisagedifitreceivescomplaintsregardinginfringementsofthosearticles?
AnswergivenbyMrVitorinoonbehalfoftheCommission
(22May2003)
The detention of Mr Vincenzo Mitidieri by the Italian authorities must be considered as a question
regarding the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security. Pursuant to
Article33oftheTreatyonEuropeanUnion,itistheMemberStates,whichareresponsibleforwhataction
shouldbetakentomaintainlawandorderandtosafeguardtheirinternalsecurity.
AsregardspossibleactionbytheCommission,theCommissionregretstoinformtheHonourableMember
thatitisnotitsroletointerveneinsuchmatters,whichfallentirelywithinMemberStates’competencies.
However, it should be stressed that, following exhaustion of all domestic remedies, as Mr Mitidieri
considersthathisfundamentalrightswereviolated,thereexiststhepossibilityofapplyingtotheEuropean
CourtofHumanRightsforredress.C58E/60 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion