Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770519-632373
Timestamp: 2016-12-05 02:32:45+00:00
Document Index: 85348093

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 369", '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 3', "l'article 42", '§ 2', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§4', "l'article 42", "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 3', "l'article 6", '§ 2', "l'article 6", '§ 1', '§ 2', "l'article 6", '§ 1', '§5', "l'article 6", "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 6", '§ 2', "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 6", '§ 3', "l'article 27", '§ 2']

BOCCHIERI v. ITALIE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche BOCCHIERI v. ITALIE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6323/73Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-05-19;6323.73 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : BOCCHIERI v. ITALIETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 6323/7 3 Salvatore BOCCHIERI v/ITALY Salvatore BOCCHIERI c/ITALI E DECISION of 19 May 1977 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 19 mai 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te
Article 6 paragraph I of the Convention : Reasonable time . In order to determine the period to be taken into considerdtion it is inappropriate to make a distinction between the stage of investigation and that of the trial. The period starts with the day on which a person is Â« charged n, the latter term including the person who is faced with a criminal charge (Fr. Â«inculpation A . Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention : It is not possible to complain of a violation of this provision before the opening of the trial proceedings. Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : DÃ©lai rdisonnab/e . Pour dÃ©terminer la durÃ©e Ã prendre en considÃ©ration, il n'y a pas lieu de faire une distinction entre la phase de l'instruction et celle des dÃ©bats . Le dÃ©tai court dÃ©s le jour oÃ¹ une personne est rr accusÃ©e Â», ce terme incluant celui qui est sous le coup d'une inculpation . Article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : On ne peut se plaindre d'une violation de cette disposition avant l'ouverture de la procÃ©dure de mise en jugement .
(English : see p. 64 )
Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : 1 . Le requÃ©rant est nÃ© Ã© Tunis le 12 avril 1937 et rÃ©sidait lors de l'introduction de sa requÃªte Ã GÃªnes . Il est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me E . Po rta, avocat au barreau de Gi'nes . Le 27 avril 1972, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© Ã© Savone en flagrant dÃ©lit supposÃ© (supposta flagranza di reato) de tentative d'extorsion de fonds . Le 24 aoÃ»t de la mÃ©me annÃ©e, le juge d'instruction ( tribunal de Savone) l'a informÃ© au moyen d'un mandat de dÃ©pbt (mandato di cattural des prÃ©ventions po rtÃ©es Ã© sa charge .
Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© entre autre s - d'avoir favorisÃ© et exploitÃ© la prostitution - de port d'arme non autorisÃ© . Ses demandes de mise en libertÃ© provisoire ont Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©es le 27 octobre 1972 par le juge d'instruction et, sur appel du requÃ©rant, par la cour d'appel de GÃ©nes (22 novembre 1972) . Sur le pourvoi formÃ© par le requÃ©rant, la Cour de cassation a
ws.ssÃ© par un arrit du 22 fÃ©vrier 1973 la dÃ©cision de la cour d'appel et a renvoyÃ© l'affaire aux fins de rÃ©examen devant cette mÃ©me cour . Le 26 avril 1973, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© mis en libertÃ© . Par un arrÃ©t du 13 juin 1973, la cour d'appel de GÃªnes dÃ©clare irrecevable, comme Ã©tant dÃ©sormais dÃ©pourvu d'intÃ©rÃ©t (sopravvenuta carenza di interesse) l'appel formÃ© par le requÃ©rant contre la dÃ©cision du 27 octobre 1972 . Selon le requÃ©rant, aucun acte relatif Ã l'instruction de l'affaire n'avait Ã©tÃ© accompli par le juge d'instruction depuis sa libÃ©ration et mÃ©me depuis l'interrogatoire Â« sommaire rr auquel il a Ã©tÃ© soumis peu aprÃ©s son arrestation en 1972, du moins jusqu'A la date d'introduction de la requÃªte . En rÃ©ponse Ã une question qui lui a Ã©tÃ© posÃ©e par le Secritariat sur instructions du Rapporteur, l'avocat du requÃ©rant a soutenu qu'il ne disposait, en droit italien, d'aucune voie de recours pour activer la procÃ©dure litigieuse .
2 . D'aprÃ©s des renseignements communiquÃ©s par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, le 13 juin 1975, le juge d'instruction du tribunal de Savone a transmis, en application de l'article 369 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, le dossier au ministÃ©re public . Le 24juin 1975, ce dernier a demandÃ© le renvoi en jugement du requÃ©rant devant le tribunal de Savone . D'aprÃ©s le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . le juge d'instruction a, le 4 aoÃ»t 1975, et ce Ã la suite de conclusions prÃ©sentÃ©es par le ministÃ©re public, pris une ordonnance de renvoi en jugement du requÃ©rant devant le tribunal de Savone . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a ajoutÃ© qu'il appartenait au greffe du tribunal de fixer, aussitÃ´t que possible, la date d'audience (ces renseignements datent du 6 septembre 1975) . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a Ã©galement exposÃ© que le requÃ©rant, arrÃ©tÃ© le 27 avril 1972 et mis en libertÃ© le 26 avril 1973, n'a pu Ãªtre jugÃ© au cours des trois annÃ©es Ã©coulÃ©es Ã cause notamment de la complexitÃ© de l'instruction et de la surcharge du rÃ´le du tribunal de Savone . 3 . En commentant les renseignements communiquÃ©s par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, le requÃ©rant a relevÃ© que le Gouvernement italien n'a pas expliquÃ© les raisons pour lesquelles l'instruction a Ã©tÃ© retardÃ©e et n'a pas Ã©tÃ© close avant la date indiquÃ©e par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . Il a soulignÃ© que ce retard n'a aucune justification raisonnable car aucun acte de procÃ©dure n'Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire et, au demeurant, aucun acte n'a Ã©tÃ© accompli au cours des trois annÃ©es Ã©coulÃ©es . En effet, l'instruction de l'affaire avait Ã©tÃ© achevÃ©e dans les tout premiers jours et malgrÃ© cela le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de sa libertÃ© pendant un an, c'est-Ã -dire jusqu'au 26 avril 1973 . Estimant qu'il y a eu violation de la Convention dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce, le conseil du requÃ©rant avance qu'il ressort des dates indiquÃ©es par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur que le juge d'instruction a Ã©tÃ© amenÃ© Ã clore l'instruction Ã la suite de la demande de renseignements faite par la Commission au Gouvernement italien . Les griefs du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : 4 . Dans sa requÃ©te introductive, le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ© la violation des article s - 5Â§ 2, car il n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© dans le plus court dÃ©lai des accusations portÃ©es contre lui ;
- 5Â§ 3, car il aurait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu sans motifs valables et sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive aurait durÃ© plus que de raison ; - 6Â§ 1, car sa cause n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© entendue dans un dÃ©lai raisonnabl e
- 6Â§ 2, car il aurait Ã©tÃ© reconnu responsable des infractions portÃ©es Ã sa charge (il est fait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã la dÃ©cision du juge d'instruction du 27 octobre 1972 ) - 6 Â§ 3 d), car il n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© Ã mÃ©me de faire interroger les tÃ©moins Ã charge . La partie de la requÃªte portÃ©e Ã la connaissance du Gouvernement italien le 4 mars 1976 en application de l'article 42, Â§ 2 litt . b) n'a trait qu'aux griefs relatifs 8 l'article 6Â§Â§ 1, 2 et 3 d) . PROCEDURE 1 . Le 14 octobre 1974, le Rapporteur procÃ©de Ã un examen prÃ©alable de cette requÃªte . Sur ses instructions, le SecrÃ©tariat est chargÃ© de demander au requÃ©rant : - s'il existait en droit italien une voie de recours pour activer la procÃ©dure litigieuse et ,
- de prÃ©ciser ses allÃ©gations relatives Ã l'article 6, Â§4 1, 2 et 3 litt . d) . Le SecrÃ©tariat s'acquitte de cette tÃ¢che le 18 octobre 1974 . Le 28 dÃ©cembre 1974, le requÃ©rant rÃ©pond aux questions qui lui ont Ã©tÃ© posÃ©es . 2 . Le 28 mai 1975, la Commission aborde l'examen de cette requÃªte Ã la lumiÃ©re du rapport du 26 fÃ©vrier 1975. AprÃ©s en avoir dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©, la Commission dÃ©cide de demander au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur de lui faire connaitr e - quel est l'Ã©tat actuel de la procÃ©dure concernant les prÃ©ventions portÃ©es Ã la charge du requÃ©rant par le juge d'instruction prÃ¨s le tribunal de Savone ; - quelles sont les raisons qui empÃ©chent que l'instruction soit close, soit par une dÃ©cision de non-lieu (sentenza di non doversi procedure) soit par une dÃ©cision de renvoi (ordinanza di rinvio a giudizio) devant l'autoritÃ© judiciaire compÃ©tente . 3 . Le 8 juillet 1975, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait parvenir ses rÃ©ponses Ã© la Commission, communiquÃ©es aussitÃ´t au conseil du requÃ©rant .
Le 23 juillet 1975, le conseil du requÃ©rant fait parvenir ses commentaires . 4 . Le 14 aoÃ»t 1975, le Rapporteur, aprÃ©s avoir pris connaissance des rÃ©ponses faites par les parties, dÃ©cide de demander au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur un complÃ©ment d'information sur les poursuites pÃ©nales engagÃ©es contre le requÃ©rant, concernant les suites donnÃ©es Ã la procÃ©dure et les raisons qui ont empÃ©chÃ© que le requÃ©rant soit jugÃ© au cours des trois annÃ©es Ã©coulÃ©es . Le 6 septembre 1975, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait parvenir sa rÃ©ponse . Celle-ci a Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©e au requÃ©rant qui y a rÃ©pondu par lettre du 21 octobre 1975 . 5. Par dÃ©cision partielle du 4 mars 1976,â¢ la Commissio n 1 . dÃ©cide, en application de l'article 42, par . 2, litt . b) de son RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, de donner connaissance de la requ0te au Gouvernement mis en cause et d'inviter celui-ci Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit des observations sur la receva . bilitÃ© de la requÃ©te dans la mesure oÃ» le requÃ©rant se plaint que sa cause n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© entendue Ã©quitablement, dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, qu'il n'aurait pu interroger les tÃ©moins Ã charge et que la prÃ©somption d'innocence n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© respectÃ©e et pour autant que les faits sont postÃ©rieurs au 31 juillet 1973 ; 2 . dÃ©clare la requÃ©te irrecevable pour le surplus . ' cf . D .R . 3/80 .
6 . Le 10 mai 1976 le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait parvenir ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© . Ces observations sont communiquÃ©es au requÃ©rant le 12 mai 1976 . En dÃ©pit de plusieurs lettres du SecrÃ©tariat, entretiens tÃ©lÃ©phoniques avec Me Porta, conseil du requÃ©rant, te silence demeure . Le 5 octobre 1976, le Rapporteur examine l'affaire et dÃ©cide d'attendre la rÃ©ponse de Me Porta qui, lors d'un ultime entretien tÃ©lÃ©phonique promet l'envoi de ses observations pour la deuxiÃ©me partie du mois d'octobre . 7 . Le 15 janvier 1977, le conseil du requÃ©rant informe la Commission que l'affaire a Ã©tÃ© jugÃ©e en juin 1976 au cours d'un dÃ©bat qui n'a durÃ© qu'une heure Ã l'issue duquel le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© et il rÃ©itÃ©re les griefs sous l'angle de l'article 6 .
Le 24 janvier 1977, le SecrÃ©tariat demande au conseil du requÃ©rant des prÃ©cisions quant Ã la condamnation du requÃ©rant et en particulier sur la question de savoir oÃ¹ se trouve Ã l'heure actuelle le requÃ©rant, en dÃ©tention ou en libertÃ© . Par lettre du 27 janvier 1977, Me Porta se borne Ã indiquer l'adresse du requÃ©rant qui semble se trouver en libertÃ© . 8 . Le 21 fÃ©vrier 1977 le Gouvernement italien fait savoir par l'intermÃ©diaire de son ReprÃ©sentant Permanent qu'il entend formuler des informations Ã©crites complÃ©mentaires sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te . 9 . Le 28 fÃ©vrier 1977, la Commission dÃ©cide d'accÃ©der Ã la demande du Gouvernement de formuler des observations Ã©crites complÃ©mentaires et exprime le souhait que le Gouvernement fournisse notamment un exposÃ© chronologique de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale intentÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant, des informations relatives aux circonstances des infractions Ã lui reprochÃ©es, au degrÃ© de complexitÃ© de l'instruction et Ã la surcharge du rble du tribunal de Savone, dont le Gouvernement avait fait Ã©tat . 10 . Le 8 avril 1977, le Gouvernement fait parvenir Ã la Commission ses observations Ã©crites complÃ©mentaires . Le conseil du requÃ©rant qui disposait d'un dÃ©lai Ã©chÃ©ant le 22 avril 1977 n'a pas rÃ©pondu Ã ces observations . ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S Dans ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© du 10 mai 1976, le Gouvernement admet que la phase de la procÃ©dure quant au fond n'a pas encore commencÃ© . e . II considÃ©re, quant Ã l'a rt icle 6, Â§ 1, que c'est Ã tort que le requÃ©rant soutient la violation de cette disposition . Son argumentation est la suivante Â« Compte tenu de la distinction bien nette existant entre la phase d'instmction, qui vise essentiellement Ã recueillir des preuves Ã charge, et la phase de dÃ©bats, au cours de laquelle on Ã© value les preuves Ã charge et les preuves Ã dÃ©charge, Ã©tant donnÃ© que c'est cette derniÃ¨re phase qu'il faut considÃ©rer pour voir si le jugement est issu dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, il est absolument Ã©vident que l'appelant ne peut pas se plaindre de n'avoir pas Ã© tÃ© jusqu'Ã© prÃ©sent jugÃ© depuis aoÃ¹t 1975 (date de clÃ´ture de la phase d'instruction) . Depuis que le tribunal de Savone a Ã© tÃ© saisi de ce procÃ©s trop peu de temps s'est Ã©coulÃ© pour que l'on puisse Ã bon droit soutenir la violation de l'article 6, Â§ 1, de la Convention . n b . Quant Ã l'article 6, Â§ 3 d), le Gouvernement plaide le non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours et le dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement .
c . Enfin, quant Ã l'article 6, Â§ 2, le Gouvernement plaide le dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement .
Dans les observations complÃ©mentaires du Gouvernement, du 8 avril 1977, ne figurent pas les informations demandÃ©es par la Commission le 28 fÃ©vrier 1977 quant au dÃ©roulement de la procÃ©dure, aux circonstances des diffÃ©rentes infractions mises Ã la charge du requÃ©rant, A la complexitÃ© de l'instruction et Ã la surcharge du rÃ´le du tribunal de Savone Ã©voquÃ©es par le Gouvernement . Dans sa lettre du 25 janvier 1977, le conseil du requÃ©rant rÃ©itÃ©re ses griefs dans le cadre de l'anicle 6 en prÃ©cisant que les dÃ©bats au fond n'ont eu lieu qu'en juin 1976, suivis d'un jugement, mais il n'en prÃ©cise pas la teneur . EN DROIT 1 . La Commission examinera ci-aprÃ©s la partie de la requÃ©te qui n'a pas Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable par sa dÃ©cision du 4 mars 1976, Ã savoir les allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant se rapportant Ã l'article 6, Â§ 1, 6, Â§Â§ 2 et 3 d) de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© statuÃ© sur l'accusation pÃ©nale engagÃ©e contre lui dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable et invoque Ã© ce sujet l'article 6, Â§ 1 de la Convention . Dans ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient que ce grief est manifestement mal fondÃ© . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur part de l'idÃ©e que, compte tenu de la distinction existant entre la phase de l'instruction et celle des dÃ©bats, c'est Ã partir du dÃ©but de cette derniÃ©re phase qu'il faut considÃ©rer si le dÃ©lai dans lequel un jugement est dÃ©livrÃ© revÃªt ou ne revÃªt pas un caractÃ¨re raisonnable . Or, dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce, ce n'est qu'en aoÃ»t 1975 que la phase des dÃ©bats a commencÃ© .
La Commission estime ne pas devoir partager ce point de vue . En effet, ainsi que l'a soulignÃ© la Cour dans l'Affaire Neumeister (ArrÃ©t du 27 juin 1968, partie a En droit n Â§5 18 et 19) . la pÃ©riode Ã prendre en considÃ©ration pour vÃ©rifier si la procÃ©dure poursuivie Ã charge d'un accusÃ© s'est prolongÃ© au-delÃ du dÃ©lai raisonnable prÃ©vu Ã l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention commence le jour oÃ¹ une personne se trouve Â« accusÃ©e rr, ce mot visant notamment la personne qui est sous le coup d'une inculpation, ainsi qu'il ressort de l'arr8t prÃ©citÃ© libideml . Le terme final du dÃ©lai est le jugement statuant sur le bien-fondÃ© de l'accusation . Dans le cas d'espÃ©ce, le terme final semble coÃ¯ncider avec la condamnation du requÃ©rant prononcÃ©e en juin 1976, car il ne ressort pas du dossier que celui-ci ait interjetÃ© appel de cette condamnation . Or, mÃªme si l'on ne tient compte que de la pÃ©riode comprise entre le 1â¢' aoÃ¹t 1973 (date Ã partir de laquelle le Gouvernement italien a dÃ©clarÃ© accepter la compÃ©tence de la Commission en matiÃ©re de recours individuelsl et le mois de juin 1976, force est de constater que prÃ©s de trois ans se sont Ã©coulÃ©s avant que le requÃ©rant n'ait Ã©tÃ© jugÃ© . Ouant au premier des deux motifs invoquÃ©s par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur pour justifier ce dÃ©lai, Ã savoir la complexitÃ© de l'instruction, rien dans le dossier ne permet de conclure que l'action pÃ©nale intentÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant revÃ©tait un caractÃ©re de complexitÃ© exceptionnelle . Quant au deuxiÃ¨me motif, Ã savoir la surcharge du rÃ´le du tribunal de Savone, aucun renseignement prÃ©cis n'a Ã©tÃ© fourni par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur Ã ce sujet .
La Commission estime dÃ©s lors que l'allÃ©gation du requÃ©rant sous l'angle de l'article 6, Â§ 1 de la Convention ne saurait Ã ce stade Ã©tre rejetÃ©e pour dÃ©faut manifest e
de fondement au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention et qu'elle doit faire l'objet d'un examen au fond . 3 . Le requÃ©rant avance Ã©galement que la prÃ©somption d'innocence garantie par l'article 6, Â§ 2, aurait Ã©tÃ© violÃ©e Ã son dÃ©triment . La Commission constate Ã ce sujet qu'au moment oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a formulÃ© ce grief, la procÃ©dure au fond n'avait pas encore commencÃ© et qu'il n'y avait dÃ©s lors pas de jugement Ã©tablissant lÃ©galement la culpabilitÃ© du requÃ©rant . Dans ces conditions, la Commission est d'avis que le requÃ©rant ne peut pas se plaindre d'une violation du principe de prÃ©somption d'innocence au sens dudit article . Il s'ensuit que ce grief est manifestement mal fondÃ© au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention .
4 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint, enfin, de ne pas avoir Ã©tÃ© Ã mÃªme de faire interroger les tÃ©moins Ã charge et invoque l'article 6, Â§ 3, dl de la Convention . La Commission estime qu'en ce qui concerne ce grief le requÃ©rant n'apporte pas le moindre Ã©lÃ©ment de preuve Ã l'appui de ses allÃ©gations . Ce grief est dÃ©s lors dÃ©nuÃ© de tout fondement et doit Ã©tre rejetÃ© par application de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n 1 . DÃCLARE RECEVABLE et retient la requÃªte, tout moyen de fond Ã©tant rÃ©servÃ©, pour autant que le requÃ©rant se plaint que sa cause n'a pas Ã©tÃ© entendue dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable ; 2 . LA DÃCLARE IRRECEVABLE pour le surplu s
(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : 1 . The applicant was born in Tunis on 12 April 1937 and at the time of lodging his application was resident in Genoa . He is represented by Mr E . Porta, barrister practising in Genoa .
On 27 April 1972 the applicant was arrested in Savona allegedly in the act Isupposta flagranza di reatol of attempted extortion . On 24 August of the same year, the investigating judge of the Savona Regional Court notified him in an arrest warrant (mandato di cattura) of the charges against him . The applicant was accused, inter alia : - of having promoted and exploited prostitution - of unauthorised carrying of arms . His applications for provisional release were rejected on 27 October 1972 by the investigating judge, and on appeal by the Genoa Court of Appeal (22 November 1972) . On a further appeal, the Court of Cassation on 22 February 1973 set aside the Court of Appeal's decision and referred the case to the same court for re-examination . On 26 April 1973 the applicant was released . In its judgment of 13 June 1973, the Genoa Court of Appeal declared the applicant's appeal against the decision of 27 October 1972 inadmissible, as having become devoid of interest Isoprawenuta carenza di interesse) .
-6q_
Accordina to the applicant, no step in the investigation of his case had been taken by the investigating judge since he was granted bail, or indeed since the "summa ry " interroaation to which he had been subjected sho rt ly after his arrest in 1972, at least up to the date when his application was lodged . In reply to a question put to him by the Secretariat on the instructions of the Rappo rt eur, the applicant's counsel stated that there was no available remedy under Italian law for expediting the proceedings . 2 . According to the information communicated by the respondent Government on 13 June 1975, the investigating judge at the Savona Regional Cou rt transmitted the file to the public prosecutor in accordance with A rticle 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . On 24 June 1975, the public prosecutor asked for the applicant to be sent for trial before the Savona Regional Cou rt . According to the respondent Government, on 4 August 1975 the investigating judge issued an order committing the applicant for trial at the Savona Regional Cou rt , tollowing the public prosecutor's conclusions . The respondent Government added that it was for the regist ry of the cou rt to fix the date of the hearing as soon as possible Ithis information dates from 6 September 1975) . The respondent Government also explained that it had not been possible to t ry the applicant, who had been arrested on 27 April 1972 and released on 26 April 1973, in the course of the past three years mainly because of the complexity of the investigation and the backlog of cases before the Savona Regional Cou rt . 3 . In his comments on the information provided by the respondent Government, the applicant pointed out that the Italian Government had not explained the reasons for the delay in the investigation and for the fact that it had not been concluded by the date indicated by the respondent Government .
He stressed that there was no reasonable justification for this delay, since no procedural step was required or indeed, had been taken during the past three years . In fact, the investigation of the case had been completed in the ve ry first few days, despite which the applicant had been deprived of his freedom for a year, i .e . until 26 April 1973 . Being of the opinion that the Convention has been violated in this case, counsel for the applicant argues that it emerges from the dates given by the respondent Government that the investigating judge had been prompted to conclude the investigation following the Commission's request for information from the Italian Government . The applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows : 4 . In his application, the applicant alleged the violation of the following A rt icles - Article 5 121, because he had not been informed promptly of the charges against him ; - Article 5 131, because he had been detained without good reason and his detention remand had lasted longer than was reasonable ; - A rticle 6 111, because his case had not been heard within a reasonable tim e - A rticle 6 ( 2 ) , because he had been presumed guilty of the offences with which he was charged ( reference is made to the investigating judge's decision of 27 October 1972) ;
- Article 6(3 ) d, because he had not been able to have the witnesses against him examined .
That part of the application which was brought to the attention of the Italian Government on 4 March 1976 in accordance with Rule 42 (2) b, relates only to the complaints under Article 5, paragraphs 111, (2) and (3) d . THE PROCEEDING S 1 . On 14 October 1974 the Rapporteur carried out a preliminary examination of the application . On his instructions, the Secretariat was required to ask the applicant : - whether there was under Italian law any remedy for expediting the proceedings, and
- to clarify his allegations in connection with Article 6111, (2) and 131 d . The Secretariat discharged this task on 18 October 1974 . On 28 December 1974 the applicant replied to the questions put to him . 2 . On 28 May 1975, the Commission began its examination of the application in the light of the report of 26 February 1975. After deliberating, the Commission decided to ask the respondent Government to state : - what stage had now been reached in the proceedings in respect of the charges brought against the applicant by the investigating judge at the Savona Regional Court ; - what impediment there was to termination of the investigation, either by a non suit (sentenza di no doversi procedure) or by remitting the case to the competent court for trial (ordinanza di rinvio a guidizio) . 3 . On 8 July 1975, the respondent Government sent the Commission their replies, which were at once sent to the applicant's counsel . On 23 July 1975, counsel for the applicant submitted his comments . 4 . On 14 August 1975, the Rapporteur, after noting the replies of the parties, decided to request the respondent Government for further information on the steps taken in the criminal proceedings against the applicant, and the reasons why he had not been tried within the last three years . On 6 September 1975, the respondent Government sent their reply . This was communicated to the applicant, who replied in a letter of 21 October 1975 . 5 . In a partial decision of 4 March 1976', the Commission : 11 decided, in accordance with Rule 42 (2) b of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit their observations in writing on the admissibility of the application in so far as the applicant complained that : - he had not been given a fair hearing within a reasonable time - he had not been able to examine witnesses against him ; and
1 . cf . D .R . 3/80
- the presumption of innocence had not been respected, in so far as the facts were subsequent to 31 July 1973 ; 2) declared the remainder of the application inadmissible . 6 . On 10 May 1976 the respondent Government submitted their observations on admissibility which were sent to the applicant on 12 May 1976 . Despite several letters from the Secretariat and telephone calls to Mr Porta, counsel for the applicnt, nothing was heard . On 5 October 1976, the Rapporteur examined the case and decided to await the reply from Mr Porta, who promised in a final telephone call to send his observations in the second half of October . 7 . On 15 January 1977, counsel for the applicant informed the Commission that the case had been tried in June 1976 in the course of a hearing lasting only one hour at the end of which the applicant had been convicted, and restated his complaints under Article 6 . On 24 January 1977, the Secretariat requested the applicant's counsel to give details of the applicant's conviction, and particularly to elucidate the present whereabouts of the applicant ; was he in custody or at liberty 7 In a letter of 27 January 1977, Mr Porta simply gave the address of the applicant, who appeared to be at liberty . 8 . On 21 February 1977, the Italian Government gave notice through its Permanent Representative that it intended to submit further written particulars regarding the admissibility of the application .
9 . On 28 February 1977, the Commission decided to accede to the Government's request to submit additional written observations, and expressed the wish that the Government would in particular supply a chronological account of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and information about matters which the Government had mentioned, i .e . the circumstances of the offences with which he was charged, the degree of complexity of the investigation, and the backlog of cases before the Savona Regional Court . 10 . On 8 April 1977, the Government sent their additional written observations to the Commission . Counsel for the applicant did not reply to these observations within the allotted time limit, which expired on 22 April 1977
.SUBMIONFTHEPARI
In their observatione on admisaibllity of 10 May 1976, the Government admitted that the merits stage of the proceedings had not yet begun . a) They took the view that the application wrongly alleged a violation of Article 6 (1) . Their argument ran as follow s "In view of the clear distinction between the investigation, the main purpose of which is to assemble evidence against the accused, and the trial, in the course of which evidence both for and against the accused is assessed, it is quite obvious that the applicant cannot complain of not having been tried between August 1975 (whe n
ihe investigation was concluded) and the present time since it is the trial that must be taken into consideration in deciding whether judgment was given within a reasonable time . Too little time has elapsed since the case was remitted to the Savona Regional Court to justify the allegation of a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention . " b) With regard to Article 6 (3) d, the Government argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted and that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded . c) Finally, with regard to Article 6(2) . the Government argued that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded .
The Government's additional observations of 8 April 1977 did not contain the information which the Commission had requested on 28 February 1977 regarding the history of the proceedings, and the various matters mentioned by the Government, namely the circumstances of the different offences with which the applicant was charged, the complexity of the investigation and the backlog of cases before the Savona Regional Court . In his letter of 25 January 1977, counsel for the applicant repeats the complaints in connection with Article 6, stating that the hearing on the merits did not take place until June 1976 ; the hearing was followed by a judgment, but the nature of which is not indicated . THE LAW 1 . The Commission will examine below that part of the application which was not declared inadmissible in its decision of 4 March 1976, namely the applicant's allegations in connection with Article 6 (1), 6 121 and 6 (3) d, of the Convention . 2 . The applicant alleges that the criminal charge against him was not determined within a reasonable time, and relies in this connection on Article 6 111 of the Convention . In their observations on the admissibility of the application, the respondent Government maintain that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded . The Government base their argument on the idea that, in view of the distinction between the investigation and the trial, the appreciation of whether or not judgment was given within a reasonable time should be based on the period starting from the commencement of the trial . In the instant case, the trial did not begin until August 1975 . The Commission is unable to accept this point of view . As the Court emphasised in the Neumeister case (Judgment of 27 June 1968, the part headed "As to the Law", paras . 18 and 19), the period to be taken into consideration for verifying whether the proceedings against an accused person lasted beyond the reasonable time laid down in Arricle 6 (1) of the Convention begins with the day on which a person is "charged", this term referring to a person against whom a charge has been brought, as is clear from the judgment cited libideml . The period ends with the judgment determining the charge . In this case, tfie period would seem to end with the conviction of the applicant in June 1976, since it does not emerge from the file that the applicant lodged an appeal against that conviction .
Now, even if account is taken only of the period between 1 August 1973 (from which date the Italian Government stated its acceptance of the Commission's jurisdiction in individual petitions) and June 1976, the fact remains that almost three yeais elapsed before the applicant was tried .
Reqardinp the first of the two grounds adduced by the respondent Government to justify this delay, namely the complexity of the investigation, there is nothing in the file to warrant the conclusion that the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant were exceptionally complex . As for the second ground, namely the backlog or cases berore the Savona Regional Court, the respondent Government have not supphed any precise intormation on this subject . The Commission therefore considers that the applicant's allegation from the standpoint of Article 6 I71 of the Convention cannot at this juncture be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention and must be examined on its merits .
3 . The applicant also alleges that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6(2) was violated to his detriment . The Commission notes in this connection that at the time when the applicant lodged this complaint the proceedings on the merits had not yet begun, and that there was consequently no judgment legally establishing the applicant's guilt . This being so, the Commission is of the opinion that the applicant cannot complain of a violation of the presumption of innocence in Article 6 121 . It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 4 . Finallv . the aoolicant complains that he was unable to have witnesses against him examined, and relies here on Article 6 (3) d, of the Convention . The Commission considers that, where this complaint is concerned, the applicant has not produced the slightest evidence in support of his allegations . This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 27 (2) of the Convention . Now, therefore the Commission : DECLARES the application ADMISSIBLE without preiudice to the merits, in so far as the aoolicant complains that his case was not heard within a reasonable time ;
:: ; ~ ~Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 19/05/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page