Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770301-669474
Timestamp: 2016-10-23 03:20:23+00:00
Document Index: 24063242

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 160", "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 3', "l'article 42", '§ 2', "l'article 421", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", '§ 5', "l'article 26", '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 3', "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 3', "l'article 5", '§ 1', '§ 5', "l'article 5", '§ 5', "l'article 5", '§ 1', '§ 5', "l'article 6", '§ 3', "l'article 571", "l'article 571", "l'article 26", "l'article 5", "l'article 26", "l'article 571", "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 5", '§ 5', "l'article 571", "l'article 27", '§ 3', "l'article 6", '§ 3', "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 6", '§ 3']

Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche ARTICO c. ITALIE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6694/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-03-01;6694.74 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : ARTICODéfendeurs : ITALIETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 6694/74 Ett ore ARTICO v/ITALV E ttore ARTICO c/ITALI E DECISION of 1 March 1977 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 1er mars 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 5, paragraph I a) of the Convention : lf a court quashes the order to detain a convicted person and re%ases him because his sentence can no longer be served because the limitation period for the offences had expired, the time already served in prison may be considered "untawful". Article 6, paragraph 3 c) of the Convention : After having granted legal aid, the coun fails to provide a substitute for the legal aid counsel, who had withdrawn . Complaint declared admissible . Article 26 of the Convention : The applicant who addresses himself to the Commission after having obtained a national decision which declares his detention unlawful, must previously claim compensation from the competent domestic authorities.
Article 5, paragraphe 1, fitt . a) de ie Convention : Lorsqu'un tribunal annule l'ordre d'Ã©crouer un condamnÃ© et met celui-ci en libertÃ© au motif que la oeine ne nouvait olus Ã©tre exÃ©cutÃ©e pour cause de prescription, il y a lieu de considÃ©rer oue la dÃ©tention dÃ©jA subie n'Ã©tait pas "rÃ©gu/iÃ©re" .
Article 6, paragraphe 3, titt. c) de la Convention : AprÃ©s octroi de l'assistance judiciaire, tribunal omettant de pourvoir au remplacement de l'avocat commis d'office, qui s'Ã©tait dÃ©srstÃ©. Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable . Article 26 de la Convention : Celui qui saisit la Commission d'une requÃªte aprÃ©s avoir obtenu une dÃ©cision nationale dont ressort t'irrÃ©gularitÃ© de se dÃ©tention, doit demander prÃ©alabiement reparation aux eutoritÃ©s nationales comoÃ©tentes.
IEnqlish : see o. 82 )
Les faits de la cause tels qu'ils rÃ©sultent du dossier, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit* :
Le requÃ©rant, ressortissant italien nÃ© en 1917, expert comptable (ragioniere), Ã©tait dÃ©tenu lors de l'introduction de sa requÃªte Ã la prison de Milan . â¢ Voir ciaorÃ¨s la lisre chronoloainue des orincipaux Ã©v6nements .
1 . Par deux dÃ©cisions du 16 dÃ©cembre 1969 et du 17 avril 1971, le tribunal de VÃ©rone confirma deux prÃ©cÃ©dentes dÃ©cisions rendues par le juge de paix (Pretore) de VÃ©rone par lesquelles celui-ci avait condamnÃ© le requÃ©rant Ã des peines de rÃ©clusion, d'une part pour escroquerie simple, d'autre part pour escroquerie avec rÃ©cidive, substitution de personnes et Ã©mission de chÃ©ques sans provision . Le requÃ©rant fait valoir que les dÃ©lits ci-dessus mentionnÃ©s, commis en mai-juin 1964 Ã©taient, Ã l'exception du dÃ©l"rt d'escroquerie avec rÃ©cidive, prescrits en novembre 1971 . S'agissant en effet de dÃ©lits pour lesquels la loi Ã©dicte des peines de rÃ©clusion pour une durÃ©e infÃ©rieure, pour chacun de ces dÃ©lits, Ã cinq ans, le dÃ©lai de prescription est fixÃ© Ã cinq ans (article 157, al . 4, du Code pÃ©nall . Or, mÃªme si l'on tient compte des actes qui ont interrompu le cours de la prescription, les dÃ©lais impartis pour que celle-ci se rÃ©alise ne pourraient dÃ©passer sept ans 1/2 en vertu de l'article 160 du Code pÃ©nal . En l'espÃ©ce sept ans 1/2 s'Ã©taient Ã©coulÃ©s entre mai-juin 1964 et novembre 1971 .
Dans les deux cas, au moment de la prescription des dÃ©lits, les dÃ©cisions du tribunal de VÃ©rone n'Ã©taient pas dÃ©finitives car dans l'intervalle le requÃ©rant s'Ã©tait pourvu en cassation . Elles ne le sont devenues que lorsque la Cour de cassation, par deux ordonnances du 12 novembre 1973, eut dÃ©clarÃ© les pourvois irrecevables . L'exÃ©cution des peines de condamnation n'aurait donc pas dÃ» se rÃ©aliser . Le requÃ©rant introduisit par la suite auprÃ©s de la Cour de cassation une demande en rÃ©vision en vue de faire constater l'extinction des dÃ©lits pour cause de prescription . Par un arrÃªt du 5 ao0t 1975, la Cour reconnut le bien-fondÃ© de la demande Ã laquelle elle fit droit . Par cet arrÃªt, la Cour prit acte de ce qu'il y avait eu prescription pour les dÃ©lits prÃ©citÃ©s et annula par consÃ©quent les dÃ©cisions du tribunal de VÃ©rone . 2 . Par dÃ©cision du 8 aoÃ»t 1972, la Cour de cassation avait octroyÃ© au requÃ©rant l'assistance judiciaire pour l'examen des pourvois qu'il avait introduits qui firent l'objet des deux ordonnances du 12 novembre 1973 . Le 8 septembre 1972, l'avocat commis d'office communiqua au requÃ©rant ne pas Ãªtre en mesure d'accepter de le dÃ©fendre et lui conseilla de s'adresser Ã un autre avocat dont il indiqua le nom . Le requÃ©rant demanda par la suite Ã l'avocat commis d'office de proposer lui-mÃªme son remplacement suivant la procÃ©dure prescrite . Le 17 octobre 1972, l'avocat commis d'office aurait prÃ©sentÃ© une demande en ce sens Ã la Cour de cassation . Le 30 janvier 1973, Artico s'adressa Ã la Cour de cassation pour solliciter le remplacement de cet avocat par un autre qui puisse lui fournir une assistance judiciaire efficace . En mai et en juin 1973, le Greffier de la Cour communiqua au requÃ©rant que l'avocat n'avait pas encore Ã©tÃ© remplacÃ© . Le 19 juin, Artico rÃ©itÃ©ra sa demande Ã la Cour de cassation . En octobre 1973, il fut communiquÃ© au requÃ©rant que l'examen de ses pourvois avait Ã©tÃ© fixÃ© pour le mois de novembre et que l'avocat n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© remplacÃ© . Le 6 octobre le requÃ©rant, se plaignant de cet Ã©tat dÃ© choses, demanda qu'un dÃ©fenseur lui soit octroyÃ© qui puisse assurer sa dÃ©fense Ã l'audience du 12 novembre . Le 2 novembre 1973, le requÃ©rant adressa une derniÃ¨re demande Ã la Cour afin qu'elle sursit Ã l'examen de ses pourvois, en allÃ©guant la violation des droits de l'homme . Liste chronologique des principaux Ã©vÃ©nement s 1 . ProcÃ©dure relative aux condamnations du requÃ©ran t 1 . 27 janvier 1965, le Â« Pretore Â» de VÃ©rone (juge de paix) condamne le requÃ©rant Ã un an et six mois d'emprisonnement pour escroquerie (truffa) . Les faits relatifs
Ã cette condamnation ont eu lieu en mai 1964 . 28 janvier 1965 , le requÃ©rant interjette appel de cette dÃ©cision . 16 dÃ©cembre 1969, le tribunal de VÃ©rone, statuant sur l'appel en l'absence du requÃ©rant, confirme la dÃ©cision entreprise . 11 octobre 1971, le tr Pretore tr de VÃ©rone dÃ©livre un ordre d'Ã©crou (ordine di carcerazione), estimant que la dÃ©cision de condamnation Ã©tait coulÃ©e en force de chose jugÃ©e . 2 . 15 juillet 1965, le x Pretore Â» de VÃ©rone condamne le requÃ©rant Ã une peine d'emprisonnement pour escroquerie (truffa) avec rÃ©cidive, substitution de personne (sostituzione di persona) et Ã©mission de chÃ¨ques sans provision (emissione di assegni a vuoto) . Les faits relatifs Ã cette condamnation ont eu lieu en mai-juin 1964 . Le requÃ©rant interjette appel de cette dÃ©cision . 16 dÃ©cembre 1969, le tribunal de VÃ©rone, statuant sur l'appel en l'absence du requÃ©rant, annule la dÃ©cision attaquÃ©e . 6 octobre 1970, le Â« Pretore a de VÃ©rone (Ã qui l'affaire avait Ã©tÃ© renvoyÃ©e) condamne le requÃ©rant par dÃ©faut Ã onze mois d'emprisonnement . 11 dÃ©cembre 1970, alors qu'il se trouve internÃ© dans une maison de travail, le requÃ©rant interjette appel . 17 avril 1971, le tribunal de VÃ©rone, statuant sur l'appel, confirme, toujours par dÃ©faut, la dÃ©cision attaquÃ©e . 13 novembre 1971, le Â« Pretore n de VÃ©rone dÃ©livre un ordre d'Ã©crou (ordine di carcerazione), estimant que la dÃ©cision de condamnation Ã©tait coulÃ©e en force de chose jugÃ©e .
3 . 8 dÃ©cembre 1971, le requÃ©rant est arrÃ©tÃ© Ã Brindisi pour d'autres faits . 22 dÃ©cembre 1971 lesdits ordres d'Ã©crou (11 .10 .71 et 13 .11 .71) sont notifiÃ©s au requÃ©rant .
25 dÃ©cembre 1971 . le requÃ©rant (qui vraisemblablement n'avait pas eu connaissance des arrÃªts rendus le 16 dÃ©cembre 1969 et le 17 avril 1971) interjette appel et, en mÃªme temps, se pourvoit en cassation contre Â« l'Ã©ventuelle dÃ©cision de deuxiÃ¨me degrÃ© n (eventuale sentenza di secondo grado) . 6 mars 1972, par deux ordonnances, le tribunal de VÃ©rone dÃ©clare irrecevables les appels car ils avaient Ã©tÃ© interjetÃ©s contre des dÃ©cisions qui avaient dÃ©jÃ© fait l'objet de cette voie de recours et transmet les pourvois Ã la Cour de cassation pour raison de compÃ©tence . 4 . 10 et 15 mars 1972, le requÃ©rant fait parvenir Ã la Cour de cassation des mÃ©moires dans lesquels il dÃ©veloppe ses moyens Ã l'appui des pourvois . Le requÃ©rant demande la jonction des deux pourvois ainsi que l'assistance judiciaire gratuite (qui est octroyÃ©e au requÃ©rant le 8 aoÃ¹t 1972, voir infra II) . Dans ses pourvois le requÃ©rant a soutenu pour l'essentiel qu'ils n'Ã©taient pas tardifs car la procÃ©dure suivie par les tribunaux en matiÃ©re de notification et de dÃ©claration en cas d'impossibilitÃ© de retrouver le prÃ©venu (dichiarazione di irreperibilitÃ©) n'auraient pas Ã©tÃ© conformes aux dispositions du Code de DrocÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Le requÃ©rant demanda Ã©galement l'annulation des dÃ©cisions de condamnations du fait de la non-observation de ces dispositions et car les prÃ©ventions portÃ©es Ã sa charge
auraient dÃ» Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©es prescrites Â« Ã la date de novembre-dÃ©cembre 1971 n, en application des articles 157 et ss . du Code pÃ©nal . 12 novembre 1973, par deux dÃ©cisions (ordinanze) la Cour de cassation dÃ©clare irrecevables les pourvois du requÃ©rant . II ressort des rÃ©quisitoires du Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral que les pourvois devaient Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©s comme Ã© tant introduits dans les dÃ©lais (n tempestivamente proposto nl . II . ProcÃ©dure concernant l'assistance judiciaire gratuite devant la Cour de cassation 8 aoÃ»t 1972, le PrÃ©sident de la deuxiÃ©me section pÃ©nale de la Cour de cassation octroie au requÃ©rant l'assistance judiciaire gratuite pour l'examen des pourvois qu'il avait introduits . 8 septembre 1972, l'avocat commis d'office dÃ©clare ne pas Ãªtre en mesure de reprÃ©senter le requÃ©rant .
17 octobre 1972, il ressort d'une le tt re, adressÃ©e le 18 janvier 1973 par l'avocat commis d'office au requÃ©rant, que le premier a fait parvenir le 17 octobre 1972 une demande Ã la Cour de cassation par laquelle il dÃ©clarait renoncer Ã dÃ©fendre le requÃ©rant pour raisons de santÃ© . Janvier - juin - octobre - novembre 1973, plusieurs dÃ©marches e ff ectuÃ©es par le requÃ©rant . Par tÃ©lÃ©gramme des 2 mai, 4 juin et 5 octobre 1973, le Greffe de la Cour de cassation intorme le requÃ©rant que l'avocat commis d'oftice n'avait pas encore Ã©tÃ© remplacÃ© .
III . ProcÃ©dure relative Ã l'exÃ©cution des dÃ©cisions de condamnatio n 22 janvier 1974, le requÃ©rant fait opposition (incidente di esecuzione) contre le dÃ©cret de cumul des peines Ã©mis le 8 fÃ©vrier 1973 par le Procureur de la RÃ©publique de VÃ©rone .
5 mars 1974 . le tribunal de VÃ©rone annule, par une ordonnance, la dÃ©cision d . ecumldspin,arejtl'opsinduqÃ©rat supl 3 avril 1974, le requÃ©rant se pourvoit en cassation . 1â¢ 1 juillet 1974, la Cour de cassation annule les ordres d'Ã©crou dÃ©livrÃ©s en 1971 mais rejette le restant du pourvoi . 14 fÃ©vrier 1975, le Procureur de la RÃ©publique de Milan ordonne le cumul des peines infligÃ©es en 1965 et 1970 . Demande en rÃ©vision du requÃ©rant en vue de faire constater l'extinction des dÃ©lits pour cause de prescription .
5 ao0t 1975, la Cour de cassation fait droit Ã la demande et annule les dÃ©cisions du tribunal de VÃ©rone . tiH1EF Ã¯ Les griefs du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comrne suit . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue deux sÃ©ries de violations ; Ã savoir l'illÃ©gitimitÃ© de sa :3 dÃ©tention consÃ©cutive aux deux dÃ©cisions de condamnation et le dÃ©faut d'assistance judiciaire devant la Cour de cassation lors de l'examen de ses pourvois rejetÃ©s le 12 novembre 1973 .
Il fait valoir que les dÃ©lits visÃ©s par les dÃ©cisions du tribunal de VÃ©rone avaient fait l'objet de prescription et que, dÃ¨s lors, les ordres d'Ã©crou n'Ã©taient pas valables .
- ;s -
Le requÃ©rant se plaint, ensuite, de ne pas avoir Ã©tÃ© assistÃ© devant la Cour de cassation par un avocat malgrÃ© ses demandes rÃ©pÃ©tÃ©es et bien que l'assistance judiciaire lui eÃ»t Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©e auparavant par cette mÃ©me Cour. Il reproche donc Ã la Cour de cassation de ne pas avoir remplacÃ© le dÃ©fenseur qu'elle avait elle-mÃªme dÃ©signÃ© .
Le requÃ©rant, qui invoque la violation de l'article 5, Â§ 1 a) et b), 5, 4 4 et de l'article 6, Â§ 3 b) et c) Â« en relation e avec les articles 13, 14, 17 et 18, a demandÃ© sa mise en libertÃ© . PROCEDUR E La requ@te a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©e par la Commission le 10 juillet 1975 Ã la lumiÃ©re du rapport datÃ© du 27 mai 1975 . Le 17 juillet 1975, la Commission a repris l'examen de cette requÃªte . Elle dÃ©cide de poser certaines questions aux parties, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, Â§ 2 a) du RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur . Elle dÃ©cide de demander au requÃ©rant : i . de faire parvenir copie des pourvois en cassation introduits le 25 dÃ©cembre 1971 ii . d'indiquer avec prÃ©cision les raisons pour lesquelles ce rt ains dÃ©lits auraient Ã©tÃ© prescrits en novembre 1971, et cela nonobstant les dÃ©cisions de condamnations en premiÃ©re instance et en appel, et les autres actes susceptibles d'avoir interrompu le cours de la prescription et compte tenu Ã©galement de l'ensemble des mesures prises par les autoritÃ©s judiciaires . Elle dÃ©cide de demander au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur :
i . de faire connaitre si, et dans l'affirmative, Ã quelle Ã©poque il y a eu prescrip . tion de certains dÃ©lits portÃ©s Ã la charge du requÃ©rant ; ii . de taire connaitre, dans le cas oÃ¹ l'extinction des dÃ©lits aurait eu lieu conformÃ©ment aux dispositions de la loi, les raisons pour lesquelles cette extinction n'a pas Ã©tÃ© relevÃ©e d'office par la Cour de cassation aux termes de l'article 421 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©naleâ¢, lo rs de l'examen des pourvois introduits par le requÃ©rant, lesquels ont fait l'objet des dÃ©cisions NÂ° 2250 et NÂ° 2251 INÂ° 5107/72 et NÂ° 5108/72 du Registre GÃ©nÃ©rall du 12 novembre 1973 iii . de faire connaitre les raisons, qui ne semblent pas resso rt ir suffisamment du texte desdites dÃ©cisions, pour lesquelles les pourvois ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ©s irrecevables iv . de rÃ©pondre, enfin, Ã la question suivante : le fait que la Cour n'ait pas relevÃ© la prescription qui Ã©tait survenue, et cela parce que les pourvois n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© considÃ©rÃ©s recevables, semble entrainer que les dÃ©cisions de condamnations sont dÃ©sormais devenues dÃ©finitives malgrÃ© la prescription ; dans ces conditions, la Commission dÃ©sire savoir si le requÃ©rant aurait pu et pourrait encore introduire une demande en rÃ©vision avec des chances de succÃ¨s . Le 14 ao0t 1975, le requÃ©rant a fait parvenir sa rÃ©ponse datÃ©e du 1^' aoÃ»t . La rÃ©ponse du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, datÃ©e du 6 septembre 1975, est parvenue au SecrÃ©tariat de la Commission le 9 septembre 1975 . Elle a Ã©tÃ© aussitÃ´t communiquÃ©e au requÃ©rant qui y a rÃ©pondu le 1^' octobre 1975 . ' L'article 421 C .P .P . dispose que s'il existe une cause d'extinction du dÃ©lit le Ãurâ¦ e, mAme d'off ice, prononce un non - lieu Ise sussiste un9 causa che estingue il reeto . . . il giudice, sentite le parti, in camera di consiglio, anche d'ufficio, pronunzie sentenza di proscioplimento . . .I .
Le 13 mai 1976, la Commission examine l'affaire Ã la lumiÃ©re du rapport du 13 mai 1976 rÃ©digÃ© en tonction des renseignements apportÃ©s par les f arties . Elle dÃ©cide de donner connaissance de la requÃªte au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur en invitant celui-ci Ã prÃ©senter ses observations en particulier sous l'angle de l'article 5, 1 al de la Convention et de l'article 5 Â§ 5 . La Commission exprime, en outre, le souhait d'obtenir un exposÃ© clair et prÃ©cis, notamment par rapport aux pÃ©riodes de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant . Les observations du Gouvernement du 10 juillet 1976 parviennent au SecrÃ©tariat le 28 juillet 1976 .
AprÃ©s plusieurs tentatives en vue de joindre le requÃ©rant, en vain d'ailleurs, c'est lui-mÃªme qui adresse au SecrÃ©tariat un tÃ©lÃ©gramme le 28 septembre 1976 pour annoncer qu'il se trouve incarcÃ©rÃ© Ã© Feldkirch (Autriche) et qu'il a l'intention d'introduire une nouvelle requPte contre l'Italie pour d'autres faits . Les observations du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur lui sont communiquÃ©es et sa rÃ©ponse parvient au SecrÃ©tariat le 20 octobre 1976 . ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S A . RÃ©sumÃ© des observations du Gouvernement italien en date du 10 juillet 1976 1 . Quant A l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes (article 26) Le Gouvernement fait valoir l'exception de non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes .
Le requÃ©rant a saisi la Commission de sa requÃªte le 26 avril 1974 c'est-Ã -dire Ã un moment oÃ¹ il n'avait pas encore Ã©puisÃ© toutes les voies de recours mises Ã sa disposition par la lÃ©gislation italienne . En effet, il n'a formulÃ© sa demande en rÃ©vision qu'aprÃ©s cette date et la Cour de cassation, par arrÃªt du 5 aoÃ¹t 1975, a cassÃ© les dÃ©cisions attaquÃ©es au motif que les dÃ©lits Ã©taient prescrits . Le requÃ©rant n'a donc pas respectÃ© les conditions de l'article 26 . 2 . Quant au bien-fondÃ© de ta requÃ©te (articles 5, Â§ 1 a) et b), 5Â§ 4, 6 Â§ 3 bl et c) a . La dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©guliÃ©re parce que consÃ©cutive Ã une condamnation par un tribunal compÃ©tent tel que prÃ©vu Ã l'article 5, Â§ 1 a) ; ceci n'est pas en contradiction avec le fait que la Cour de cassation n'a pas relevÃ© en novembre 1973 la prescription rÃ©alisÃ©e en 1971 . II est Ã©vident que cette disposition de la Convention protÃ©ge le droit Ã Ã©tre jugÃ© par un organe compÃ©tent, mais elle n'admet pas et elle ne peut admettre le recours contre une Ã©ventuelle erreur du juge . Quant Ã une prÃ©tendue violation de l'article 6, Â§ 3 b) et c) : il s'agit d'une affirmation du requÃ©rant qui ne repose pas sur la rÃ©alitÃ© des faits, Ã©tant donnÃ© que rien ne permet de soutenir que le requÃ©rant n'a pas disposÃ© du temps nÃ©cessaire Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense et qu'il n'a pas pu se prÃ©valoir des droits de la dÃ©tense . La requÃ©te est donc Ã© cet Ã©gard manifestement mal fondÃ©e . b . Quant Ã la question de la dÃ©tention tout particuliÃ©rement sous l'angle de l'article 5, Â§ 1 a) et 5, Â§ 5, le Gouvernement maintient son point de vue . Comme exposÃ© ci-dessus, la dÃ©tention est consÃ©cutive Ã une condamnation prononcie par un tribunal compÃ©tent 13 degrÃ©s de juridiction) en conformitÃ© avec les normes relatives Ã la protection de l'Ã©galitÃ© des armes et au principe des droits de la dÃ©fense .
En ce qui concerne l'article 5, Â§ 5, il est Ã©vident que la rÃ©paration du prÃ©judice ne peut entrer en liqne de compte que si la dÃ©tention n'a pas Ã©tÃ© conforme Ã cette disposition .
A cet Ã© gard, il y a lieu de prÃ©ciser que le systÃ¨me italien prÃ©voit, en cas d'acquittement au stade de la rÃ©vision comme en l'espÃ©ce, le droit pour l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã une rÃ©paration pÃ©cuniaire dans certaines conditions (articles 571 et ss . du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nalel . c. En ce qui concerne le souhait exprimÃ© par la Commission d'obtenir un exposÃ© clair et prÃ©cis quant aux pÃ©riodes de dÃ©tention subies par le requÃ©rant, le Gouvernement fait observer qu'il n'est pas en mesure de le fournir compte tenu de ce que le requÃ©rant est dÃ©tenu depuis de multiples annÃ©es du chef de divers dÃ©lits Ã la suite de condamnations prononcÃ©es par divers tribunaux . Si la Commission devait insister sur ce point, il fera le nÃ©cessaire . B . RÃ©sumÃ©desobservationsdurequÃ©rentenrÃ©ponseendatedulloctobre1976 Il ressort des observations du Gouvernement italien que non seulement la requÃ¨t e serait recevable mais que le Gouvernement reconnaÃ®trait qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 5, Â§ 1 a) et b) et 5, Â§ 5, de mÃªme que de l'article 6, Â§ 3 c) . a . Les ordres d'Ã©crou dÃ©livrÃ©s par le juge de VÃ©rone en 1971 n'Ã©taient pas valables car les dÃ©cisions du juge de VÃ©rone n'Ã©taient pas dÃ©finitives, compte tenu des pourvois pendants devant la Cour de cassation . D'ailleurs, la Cour de cassation annula le 1â¢r juillet 1974 les ordres d'Ã©crou . b . Le Gouvernement italien mentionne Ã tort l'article 571 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale .
En fait, contrairement Ã© ce que prÃ©tend le Gouvernement il n'est prÃ©vu aucune possibilitÃ© de rÃ©paration lorsque la personne est acquittÃ©e au stade de la rÃ©vision du fait de la prescription du dÃ©lit . II faut distinguer entre le cas oÃ¹ une personne est acquittÃ©e au stade de la rÃ©vision parce qu'elle est considÃ©rÃ©e comme innocente (lÃ intervient l'article 571 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale) et celui de la personne qui est acquittÃ©e pour un autre motif, notamment la prescription . Si les juges siÃ©geant Ã la Cour de cassation, au lieu de confirmer les condamnations prononcÃ©es Ã© son encontre par les juridictions infÃ©rieures, avaient examinÃ© les motifs de ses pourvois du 15 mars 1972 dans lesquels il a expressÃ©ment demandÃ© l'acquittement vu la prescription des dilits, ainsi qu'ils l'ont fait par la suite en rendant l'arrÃªt du 5 aoÃ¹t 1975, il n'aurait pas subi de dÃ©tention irrÃ©guliÃ©re . c. En ce qui concerne l'exception de non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes soulevÃ©e par le Gouvernement italien le requÃ©rant conteste le point de vue exprimÃ© par le Gouvernement en faisant valoir que le recours en rÃ©vision est un recours extraordinaire qui n'entre pas dans le cadre des voies de recours internes tel que l'entend l'article 26 de la Convention . d . Enfin, la dÃ©tention irrÃ©guliÃ©re se situe d'aprÃ¨s le requÃ©rant entre le 8 dÃ©cembre 1971 et le 1 - juillet 1974 larrÃ©t de la Cour de cassation annulant les ordres d'Ã©crou) et le 21 janvier 1975 Inouvel ordre d'Ã©croul et le 23 aoÃ»t 1975 Imise en libertÃ© Ã la suite de l'arrÃªt de la Cour de cassation du 5 ao0t 1975 constatant la prescription), en tout vingt mois de rÃ©clusion . e . Enfin, le requÃ©rant rÃ©itÃ©re l'allÃ©gation selon laquelle il y a eu violation des droits de la dÃ©fense .
II prÃ©tend que l'assistance judiciaire lui avait Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©e dÃ¨s le 9 novembre 1965 devant le tribunal de VÃ©rone et plus tard par la Cour de cassation en 1972 . EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint en premier lieu du caractÃ¨re irrÃ©gulier de sa dÃ©tention consÃ©cutive aux dÃ©cisions mentionnÃ©es ci-dessous, dÃ©tention qui aurait durÃ© prÃ¨s de vingt mois . II fait valoir que les dÃ©lits du chef desquels le tribunal de VÃ©rone l'a condamnÃ© respectivement le 16 dÃ©cembre 1969 et le 17 avril 1971, dÃ©lits perpÃ©trÃ©s au cours des mois de mai et juin 1964, Ã©taient Ã©teints pour cause de prescription, en application des articles 157, al . 4 et 160 du code pÃ©nal italien, et ce avant mÃªme que les ordres d'Ã©crou aient Ã©tÃ© dÃ©livrÃ©s Ã son encontre en octobre et novembre 1971 . II allÃ©gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 5 de la Convention . Il est vrai que cette disposition de la Convention reconnait Ã© toute personne le droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã© la sÃ¹retÃ© . Il se pose toutefois Ã la Commission la question prÃ©alable de savoir si les conditions Ã©noncÃ©es Ã l'article 26 de la Convention se trouvent rÃ©unies .
Il y a lieu de relever que le requÃ©rant fit valoir devant la Cour de cassation, au moyen de deux pourvois, l'irrÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention . Ceux-ci furent dÃ©clarÃ©s irrecevables par deux arrÃªts du 12 novembre 1973 . Ensuite, et iprÃ¨s que la Cour de cassation eÃ»t annulÃ© en date du 1â¢' juillet 1974 les ordres d'Ã©crou, le requÃ©rant introduisit devant ladite cour une demande en rÃ©vision dans le but de faire constater l'extinction des dÃ©lits pour cause de prescription . Par arrÃªt du 5 aoÃ»t 1975 . la Cour de cassation reconnut le bien-fondÃ© de la demande en rÃ©vision en prenant acte de ce qu'il y avait eu prescription des dÃ©lits prÃ©citÃ©s et annula rÃ©troactivement les dÃ©cisions du tribunal de VÃ©rone . On peut donc soutenir qu'elle a imolicitement admis l'irrÃ©qularitÃ© de la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant consÃ©cutive Ã ces dÃ©cisions . A cet Ã©oard le Gouvernement italien soutient la thÃ¨se selon laquelle le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes en arguant du fait que le requÃ©rant aurait pu demander la rÃ©paration du prÃ©judice prÃ©tendument subi en invoquant l'article 571 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale italien qui prÃ©voit le droit Ã une rÃ©paration pÃ©cuniaire en cas d'acquittement au stade de la rÃ©vision . Le requÃ©rant conteste cette thÃ©se . Il affirme qu'il n'est prÃ©vu dans cette disposition aucune possibilitÃ© de rÃ©paration lorsqu'une dÃ©cision constate, au stade de la rÃ©vision, que le dÃ©lit est Ã©teint pour cause de prescription . La Commission relÃ©ve que dans sa requÃ©te introductive le requÃ©rant se plaint essentiellement de sa dÃ©tention, son principal souci Ã©tant de faire constater l'irrÃ©gularitÃ© de celle-ci compte tenu de l'extinction des dÃ©lits par prescription et d'obtenir sa mise en libertÃ© . A cet Ã©gard, le requÃ©rant s'est pourvu jusqu'en cassation pour faire constater cette situation . Ce n'est en dÃ©finitive que dans le cadre d'une procÃ©dure de rÃ©vision que la Cour de cassation reconnut . dans son arrÃ©t du 5 aoÃ¹t 1975 . le bien-fondÃ© de la demande du requÃ©rant en annulant les dÃ©cisions gÃ©nÃ©ratrices de sa dÃ©tention . Il fut mis en libertÃ© le 23 eoÃ¹t 1975 .
Il s'ensuit qu'en admettant l'effet rÃ©troactif de cet arrÃªt, tel qu'il ressort implicitement des observations du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, l'on doit constater que la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait pas, en principe, Â« rÃ©guliÃ¨re Â» au sens de l'article 5, Â§ 1 a) . Le requÃ©rant avait donc la possibilitÃ© de demander rÃ©paration du prÃ©judice subi en application de l'article 5, Â§ 5, de la Convention .
La Commission estime que pour obtenir riparation en application de cette disposition, le requÃ©rant pouvait soit invoquer devant les juridictions internes l'article 571 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, soit faire valoir son droit Ã rÃ©paration sur la base mÃ©me de la Convention, celle-ci ayant force de loi dans le systÃ©me juridique italien . Or, il y a lieu de remarquer qu'en l'espÃ©ce le requÃ©rant n'a soulevÃ© ni formellement ni mÃ©me en substance devant les juridictions internes son droit Ã rÃ©paration . Au demeurant, ni l'examen de l'affaire telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e ni mÃ¨me l'examen d'office auquel la Commission a procÃ©dÃ© n'ont permis de dÃ©celer aucune circonstance particuliÃ©re qui aurait pu dispenser le requÃ©rant, selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus en la matiÃ©re, de soulever ce point devant les tribunaux internes . Il s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant n'a pas satisfait Ã la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes et que sa requÃ©te doit Ã©tre rejetÃ©e sur ce point conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, Â§ 3, de la Convention .
2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint en outre de ne pas avoir Ã©tÃ© assistÃ© d'un avocat dans la procÃ©dure devant la Cour de cassation lors de l'examen de ses pourvois rejetÃ©s le 12 novembre 1973 et ce bien que le bÃ©nÃ©fice de l'assistance judiciaire lui eÃ¹t Ã©tÃ© accordÃ© auparavant par cette mÃªme cour . Il allÃ©gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 6, Â§ 3 cl . II est exact que cette disposition reconnaPt Ã tout accusÃ© le x droit Ã Ãªtre assistÃ© gratuitement par un avocat d'office, lorsque les intÃ©rÃ©ts de la justice l'exigent Â» . Il y a lieu d'observer que, par dÃ©cision du 8 aoÃ¹t 1972, la Cour de cassation avait elle-mÃ©me octroyÃ© au requÃ©rant le bÃ©nÃ©fice de l'assistance judiciaire, qu'elle avait donc considÃ©rÃ© l'assistance d'un conseil comme nÃ©cessaire . Le dÃ©fenseur commis d'office se dÃ©sista et la Cour de cassation ne pourvut pas Ã son remplacement en dÃ©pit des demandes rÃ©itÃ©rÃ©es du requÃ©rant en ce sens .
II se pose dÃ©s lors Ã la Commission la question de savoir si les intÃ©rÃªts de la justice n'exigeaient pas que les autoritÃ©s judiciaires missent tout en ceuvre afin que le requÃ©rant pÃ¹t Ã©tre assistÃ© par un dÃ©fenseur compte tenu des questions juridiques posÃ©es par ses pourvois, en particulier celle de l'extinction des dÃ©lits pour cause de prescription . . La Commission est d'avis qu'en l'Ã©tat actuel du dossier la requÃ©te ne peut, sur ce point, Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable du chef de dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention, et que la solution Ã ce problÃ©me doit relever de l'examen du fond de l'affaire . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n - DÃCLARE IRRECEVABLES les griefs du requÃ©rant dans le cadre de l'a rt icle 5 de la Convention, po rt ant sur le caractÃ¨re prÃ©tendument irrÃ©gulier de sa dÃ©tention ; - DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABLE quant au grief du requÃ©rant dans le cadre de l'article 6, Â§ 3 cl, ayant trait au dÃ©faut d'assistance judiciaire dans la procÃ©dure devant la Cour de cassation .
(TRANSLATION ) THE FACT S As shown by the file, the facts of the case may be summarised as followsâ¢ The applicant, an Italian national born in 1917 and an accountant (ragioniere), was detained in the Milan prison when his application was lodged . 1 . By two decisions of 16 December 1969 and 17 April 1971, the Verona Court confirmed two earlier decisions by the magistrate (Pretore) at Verona sentencing the applicant to terms of imprisonment for fraud and repeated fraud, personation and uttering bad cheques . The applicant submits, that apart from the repeated fraud, the aforesaid offences committed in May/June 1964 became subject to limitation in November 1971 . Since all were offences for which the law prescribes a term of imprisonment of less than five years, action is barred at the end of five years (Article 157 (4) of the Penal Code) . Even allowing for acts interrupting the period of limitation, the maximum period could not exceed 7'/: years under Article 160 of the Penal Code .
In this case, 7%z years elapsed between May/June 1964 and November 1971 . In both cases, the decisions of the Verona Court had not become final at the time when the offences became subject to limitation because the applicant had appealed to the Court of Cassation . They became final only after the Court of Cassation had declared the appeals inadmissible by two orders dated 12 November 1973 . Accordingly the sentences should not have been executed . Subsequently, the applicant petitioned the Court of Cassation for a revision of his case in order to have established that the offences had become subject to limitation . The Court recognised that the appeal was well-founded and by a judgment of 5 August 1975, acceded to it . In that judgment the Court noted that the aforesaid offences had become subject to limitation and accordingly quashed the decisions of the Verona Court . 2 . By a decision of 8 August 1972, the Court of Cassation had granted the applicant legal aid for the examination of the appeals he had lodged and which were the subject of the two orders of 12 November 1973 . On 8 September 1972, the lawyer appointed to assist the applicant informed him that he was unable to defend him and advised him to approach another lawyer whose name he supplied . The applicant then asked the officially appointed lawyer to propose his own replacement in accordance with the statutory procedure . The official lawyer is said to have submitted a request to that effect to the Court of Cassation on 17 October 1972 . On 30 January 1973, Artico applied to the Court of Cassation for this lawyer to be replaced by another who could offer him effective legal aid . In May and June 1973, the clerk of the Court informed the applicant that the lawyer had not yet been replaced . On 19 June, Artico repeated his request to the Court of Cassation . In October 1973, the applicant was notified that consideration of his appeals had been fixed for November and that the lawyer had not been replaced . On 6 October, the applicant complained of this state of affairs and asked that counsel be appointed to defend him at the hearing on 12 November . On 2 November 1973, the applicant sent a final request to the Court to suspend consideration of his appeals, alleging a violation of human rights . ' See below chronoloQical list of the main events .
Chronological list of the main events 1. Proceedings concerning the applicant's conviction s 1 . 27 January 1965 The "Pretore" at Verona (magistrate) sentenced the applicant to 18 months' imprisonment for fraud (truffa) . The acts relating to that conviction took place in May 1964 . 28 January 1965 The applicant appealed against the decision . 16 December 1969 : The Verona Court ruled on the appeal in the applicant's absence and confirmed the decision . 11 October 1971 The "Pretore" at Verona issued a confinement order (ordine di carcerazionel, on the ground that the conviction had acquired the force of res judicata . 2 . 15 July 1965 : The "Pretore" at Verona sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonement for repeated fraud (truffa), personation (sostituzione di persona) and uttering bad cheques (emissione di assegni a vuoto) . The acts relating to that conviction took place in May/June 1964 . 16 December 19 69 : The Verona Court ruled on the appeal in the applicant's absence and quashed the decision complained of . 6 October 1970 : The "Pretore" at Verona (to whom the case had been referred back) sentenced the applicant in absentia to 11 months' imprisonment . 11 December 1970 : While detained in a labour centre, the applicant lodged an appeal . 17 April 1971 : The Verona Court ruled on the appeal, also in absentia, and confirmed the decision complained of . 13 November 1971 : The "PretorÃ©" at Verona issued a confinement order (ordine di carcerazione) on the ground that the conviction had acquired the force of res judicata .
3 . 8 December 1971 The applicant was arrested at Brindisi for other offences . 22 December 1971 : The aforesaid confinement orders were served on the applicant (11 .10 .71 and 13 .11 .71) . 25 December 1971 : The applicant (who had probably not been aware of the judgments delivered on 16 December 1969 and 17 April 1971) lodged an appeal and, at the same time, applied to the Court of Cassation to reverse "any decision by the court of appeal" leventuale sentenza di secondo gradol . 6 March 1972 : By two orders, the Verona Court declared the appeals inadmissible because they had been lodged against decisions which had already been the subject of this remedy and transmitted the appeals to the Court of Cassation for reasons of competence . 4 . 10 and 15 March 1972 : The applicant submitted memorials to the Court of Cassation in which he set out his arguments in support of the appeals . The applicant requested the joinder of the two appeals and asked for free legal aid (granted to the applicant on 8 August 1972, see II below . In his appeals the applicant submitted, in essence, that these were not belated, alleging that the procedure followed by the courts with regard to notification and declaration that the accused could not be traced (dichiarazione di irreperibilit8) had not complied with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The applicant als o
asked that the convictions be quashed because these provisions had not been complied with and the charges against him should have declared subject to limitation "in November/December 1971", in application of Articles 157 et seq . of the Penal Code . 12 November 1973 By two orders (ordinanze) the Court of Cassation declared the applicant's appeals inadmissible . The Public Prosecutor's indictments show that the appeals should have been regarded as having been lodged within the statutory period ("tempestivamente proposto") .
II . Proceedings concerning free legal aid before the Court of Cassatio n 8 August 1972 : The President of the second criminal section of the Court of Cassation granted the applicant free legal aid for the consideration of the appeals he had lodged . 8 September 1972 The lawyer appointed stated that he was unable to represent the applicant . 17 October 1972 : A letter sent on 18 January 1973 by the official lawyer to the applicant reveals that the former had submitted a request to the Court of Cassation on 17 October 1972 in which he stated that he withdrew from defending the applicant for health reasons . January - June - October - November 1973 : A number of steps were taken by the applicant . In telegrams dated 2 May, 4 June and 5 October 1973, the Registry of the Court of Cassation informed the applicant that the officially appointed lawyer had not yet been replaced . Ill .
Proceedings relating to the execution of the sentence s
22 January 1974 : The applicant entered an objection (incidente di esecuzione) to the order concerning the non-concurrence of sentences, issued on 8 February 1973 by the Public Prosecutor at Verona . 5 March 1974 : The Verona Court quashed, by an order, the decision concerning the non-concurrence of sentences, but dismissed the rest of the applicant's objection . 3 April 1974 The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation . 1 July 1974 The Court of Cassation set aside the committal orders issued in 1971 but dismissed the rest of the appeal . 14 February 1975 The Public Prosecutor at Milan ordered non-concurrence of the sentences passed in 1965 and 1970 . Request for a review of the case by the applicant in order to establish that action was barred by limitation . 5 August 1975 : The Court of Cassation accepted the request and quashed the decisions taken by the Verona Coun . COMPLAINTS The applicant's complaints can be summarised as follow s 3 . The applicant alleges two series of violations : viz . the unlawful nature of his detention followinq the two convictions and the lack of legal aid before the Court of Cassation durinq consideration of his appeals . dismissed on 12 November .
He submits that the offences referred to in the decisions of the Verona Court had been subject to limitation and that, accordingly, the confinement orders were not valid . The applicant complains, further, that he was not assisted by a lawyer before the Court of Cassation despite his repeated requests, although the same Court had earlier granted him legal aid . He therefore criticises the Court of Cassation for not having replaced counsel for the defence whom it had itself appointed . The applicant invokes Art icles 5 111 (a) and Ibl, 5 (4) and 6 ( 3 ) (b ) and (c), "in conjunction" with Articles 13, 14, 17 and 18 and asks to be released . PROCEEDING S The application was examined by the Commission on 10 July 1975 in the light of the report dated 27 May 1975 . On 17 July 1975, the Commission resumed its examination of this application . It decided to ask the Parties a number of questions in pursuance of Rule 42 (2) (a) of the Rules of Procedure . It decided to ask the applicant : i . to provide a copy of the appeals he had lodged with the Court of Cassation on 25 December 1971 ; B . to state the precise reasons why certain offences were alleged to have become subject to limitation in November 1971 . despite the convictions of the trial court and the court of appeal and other acts which may have interrupted the period of limitation, having regard also to all the steps taken by the judicial authorities .
It decided to ask the respondent Government : i . to state whether and, if so, when certain offences imputed to the applicant had become subject to limitation ;
ii . if the offences had expunged according to the provisions of the law, to state the reasons why the Court of Cassation had not taken note of that fact proprio motu in pursuance of Article 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure', when examining the appeals lodged by the applicant, which were the subject of decisions NÂ° 2250 and NÂ° 2251 INÂ° 5107/72 and NÂ° 5108/72 of the General Register) of 12 November 1973 ; iii . to state the reasons, which do not seem to emerge clearly from the text of the aforesaid decisions, why the appeals were declared inadmissible ; rv . to answer, lastly, the following question : the fact that the Cou rt of Cassation did not take note of the limitation which had arisen because the appeals had not been found admissible seems to imply that the convictions then became final despite the limitations ; in these circumstances, the Commission would like to know whether the applicant would have been able to or could still apply for his case to be reviewed with any chance of success . - Anicle 421 of the Code ot Criminal Procedure statea that, if there is cause to expunge an offence, the Ãudpe, even proprio motu shall, after having the Parties, declare that there are no grounds for prosecution (se iussi3te una causa che estinpue il reato
il piudice, sentite le parti, in camera di consiplio, anche
d'ufflcio, pronunzia sEntenza di prosCioplimento . . .1 .
On 14 August 1975, the applicant sent his reply dated 1 August . The respondent Government's reply, dated 6 September 1975, reached the Secretariat on 9 September 1975 . It was sent immediately to the applicant who replied to it on 1 October 1975 . On 13 May 1976, the Commission examined the case in the light of the report of 13 March 1976 based on the information furnished by the Parties . It decided to forward the application to the respondent Government and request them to present their observations, panicularly from the point of view of Article 5 ( 1) (a) and 5(5 ) of the Convention .
The Commission also asked for a clear and precise statement, particularly concerning the applicant's periods of detention . The Government's observations of 10 July 1976 reached the Secretariat on 28 July 1976 . After a number of unsuccessful attempts to reach the applicant, the Secretariat received a telegram from him on 28 September 1976 announcing that he was in prison at Feldkirch (Austria) and that he intended to lodge a further application against Italy in connection with other matters . The respondent Government's observations were sent to him and his reply reached the Secretariat on 20 October 1976 . SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S A . Summary of the Italian Government's observetions dated 10 July 1976 1 . As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies (Article 26 ) The Government submit that domestic remedies have not been exhausted . The applicant lodged his application with the Commission on 21 April 1974, i .e . at a time when he had not yet exhausted all legal remedies available to him under Italian legislation .
He did not enter his petition for review until only after that date and the Court of Cassation, by judgment of 5 August 1975, quashed the decisions in dispute of the grounds that the offences were subject to limitation . Accordingly, the applicant did not comply with the conditions of Article 26 . 2 . As to the merits of the appiication : Articles 5(1) (a) and (b), 5 (4) and 6131 (b) and (c ) a . The applicant's detention was lawful because it resulted from a conviction by a competent court as provided in Article 5(1) (a) ; that is not in contradiction with the fact that the Court of Cassation did not draw attention in November 1973 to the limitation which had taken effect in 1971 . Admittedly, this provision of the Convention protects the right to be tried by a competent body, but it does not and cannot admit appeal against a possible error by the judge . As to the alleqed violation of Article 6 (3) (b) and (c) : this assertion by the applicant is not based on facts, since there is no reason to claim that the applicant did not have adequate time for the preparation of his defence or that he was unable to avail himself of his right to defend himself . Accordingly, the aoolication is manifestly ill-founded from that point of view .
b . As to the question of detention, particularly in the light of Article 5 (1) (a) and 5 (5), the Government maintain their point of view . As shown above, detention resulted from a conviction by a competent court (31evels of jurisdiction) in accordance with the standards relating to the protection of equality of arms and the principle of the rights of the defence . As to Article 5(5), it is obvious that compensation for damage could arise only if detention were not in accordance with that provision . In this connection, it should be pointed out that, in the case of acquittal at the review stage, as on this occasion, the Italian system makes provision for the right of the person concerned to financial compensation in certain circumstances IArticles 571 et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure) . c. As to the Commission's desire to have a clear and precise statement concerning the applicant's periods of detention, the Government submit that they are unable to furnish one because the applicant has been detained for many years and for a number of offences following convictions by various courts insists, they will take the necessa ry action . .IftheComisn B . Summary of the applicant's observations in reply, dated 11 October 197 6 The Italian Government's observations allegedly reveal that not only is the application admissible, but that the Government admit that Articles 5 (1) (a) and (b), 5 (5) and also 6 (3) (c) have been violated . a . The confinement orders issued by the judge at Verona in 1971 were not valid because his decisions had not become final in view of the appeals pending before the Court of Cassation . Furthermore, the Court of Cassation set aside the confinement orders on 1 July 1974 .
b . The Italian Government wrongly refer to Article 571 of the Code~ of Criminal Procedure . In fact, contrary to the Government's submission, no provision is made for compensation if a person is acquitted when the case is reviewed because the offence has become subject to limitation . A distinction must be made between the case of a person acquitted at the review stage because he is found innocent (Article 571 of the Code of Criminal Procedure then applies) and that of a person who is acqui tt ed for another reason, such as limitation . If, instead of confirming the convictions pronounced against him by lowe r courts, the judges of the Court of Cassation had examined the reasons for his appeals of 15 March 1972 in which he expressly petitioned for acquittal on the ground that the offences had become subject to limitation, as they did subsequently in their judgment of 5 August 1975, the applicant would not have been unlawfully detained . c. As to the Italian Government's objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, the applicant submits that an appeal for revision is an extraordinary remedy and does not constitute a domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention . d. Lastly, unlawful detention occurred, according to the 'applicant, between 8 December 1971 and 1 July 1974 (judgment of the Court of Cassation setting aside the confinement orders, and between 21 January 1975 ( fresh confinement order) an d
23 August 1975 (release following the judgment of the Court of Cassation of 5 August 1975 confirming limitation) in all, twenty months' imprisonment . e. Lastly, the applicant repeats his allegation that the rights of the defence were violated . He maintains that he was granted legal assistance on 9 November 1965 before the Verona Court and later by the Court of Cassation in 1972 W
1 . The applicant first complains of the unlawful nature of his detention following the decisions referred to below, alleging that it lasted for almost twenty months . He submits that the o ttences of which the Verona Cou rt convicted him on 16 December 1969 and 17 April 1971 respectively, and committed in May and June 1964, had been expunged by limitation, in pursuance of Articles 157 141 and 160 of the Italian Penal Code, even before the confinement orders had been issued against him in October and November 1971 . He alleges that A rt icle 5 of the Convention was violated thereby . Admittedly, this provision of the Convention states that everyone has the right to libe rty and security of a person . But the Commission first has to decide whether the conditions set out in Article 26 of the Convention have been satisfied . I should be noted that, in two appeals to the Cou rt of Cassation, the applicant submitted that his detention was unlawful . These were declared inadmissible by two judgments on 12 November 1973 . Subsequently, and after the Court of Cassation had set aside the confinement orders on 1 July 1974, the applicant lodged an appeal for his case to be reviewed before the aforesaid Court, with a view to having it established that the offences had been expunged by limitation . In its judgment of 5 August 1975, the Court of Cassation recognised that the appeal was well founded, took not of the fact that the aforesaid offences had been subject to limitation and retroactively quashed the decisions of the Verona Court . It can therefore be argued that it implicitly admitted that the applicant's detention following these decisions had been unlawful . In that connection the Italian Government argue that the applicant did not exhaust all domestic remedies because he could have claimed compensation for the alleged damage suffered by invoking A rt icle 571 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the right to financial compensation in the case of acquittal at the review stage . The applicant disputes that argument . He submits that no provision is made in that A rticle for compensation when the cou rt rules, at the revision stage, that the offence has been expunged by limitation . The Commission notes that in his introducto ry application the applicant complained basically about his detention, his main object being to have its unlawful nature established in view of the fact that the offences had been expunged by limitation and to obtain his release . To that end, the applicant went as far as the Court of Cassation in order to have the situation confirmed . In fact, it was only in the context of revision proceedings that the Court of Cassation considered the applicant's appeal well founded, in its judgment of 5 August 1975 quashing the decisions leading to his detention . He was released on 23 August 1975 .
It follows that, even admitting the retroactive effect of this judgment, as follows implicitly from the respondent Government's observations, it has to be acknowledped that the applicant's detention was not, in theory, "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 ( 1) (a) . The applicant thus had the possibility of claiming compensation for the damage suffered, in pursuance of Article 5 (5) of the Convention . The Commission is of the opinion that, to obtain compensation under this provision, the applicant could either invoke Article 571 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the domestic courts or press his right to compensation on the basis of the Convention itself, since it has force of law in the Italian legal system . But it should be pointed out that, in fact, the applicant did not raise the subject of his right to compensation either formally or even in substance before the domestic courts . However, neither the examination of the case as presented . nor even the examination made proprio motu by the Commission, revealed any specific circumstance which might have dispensed the applicant, according to the principles of international law generally recognised in the matter, from raising this subject before the domestic rourts . It follows that the applicant did not satisfy the condition concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and that this part of his application must be rejected, in accordance with Article 27 131 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant also complains that he was not assisted by a lawyer during the proceedings before the Court of Cassation for the consideration of his appeals, dismissed on 12 November 1973, despite the fact that he had previously been granted legal aid by the same court . He alleges that Article 6 (3) (c), was violated therebv . It is true that this provision stipulates that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to "be given it (legal assistance) free whenâ¢the interests of justice so requirÃ©" . . It should be pointed out that, by its decision of 8 August 1972, the Court of Cassation had itself granted the applicant legal aid, that it had therefore considered that the assistance of counsel was necessary . The defence lawyer appointed withdrew and the Court of Cassation did not replace him despite the applicant's repeated requests . The Commission therefore has to decide whether the interests of justice did not make it imperative for the judicial authorities to do everything to ensure that the applicant was assisted by defence counsel, having regard to the lepal questions raised by his appeals, particularly with reference to the expunging ol the offences by limitation .
The Commission is of the opinion that, as the file stands at present, this part of the application cannot be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention, and that the solution to this problem calls for an examination of the merits of the case . For these reasons . the Commissio n - Declares INADMISSIBLE the applicant's complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, relating to the allegedly unlawful nature of his detention ; - Declares the application ADMISSIBLE in respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 6 (3) (c), concerning the absence of legal assistance in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation .
_89_Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 01/03/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page