ADILETTA AND OTHERS v. ITALY - 13978/88;14236/88;14237/88 [1991] ECHR 4 (19 February 1991)

judgment of the District Court but subsequently withdrew it. The judgment became final on 23 November 1987." PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 11. In their applications of 11 and 12 March 1988 to the Commission (nos. 13978/88, 14236/88 and 14237/88) Mrs Anna and Mrs Maria Adiletta and Mr Agovino complained of the length of the proceedings; they relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. 12. After having ordered the joinder of the applications on 7 October 1988, the Commission declared them admissible on 5 September 1989. In its report of 5 December 1989 (Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The full text of the Commission's opinion is reproduced as an annex to this judgment*. _______________ * Note by the Registrar: For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 197-E of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry. _______________ FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT BY THE GOVERNMENT 13. At the hearing on 1 October 1990 the Government confirmed the submission put forward in their memorial, in which they requested the Court to hold "that there has been no violation of the Convention in the present case". AS TO THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1) 14. The applicants claimed that their case had not been examined within a "reasonable time" as required under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which: "In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ... " The Government disputed this view, whereas the Commission subscribed thereto. 15. The period to be taken into consideration began on 23 June 1974, when the applicants received notice of the criminal proceedings; it ended on 23 November 1987, the date on which the Salerno District Court's judgment became final. 16. The participants in the proceedings presented argument as to the way in which the various criteria employed by the Court in this context - such as the degree of complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and that of the competent authorities - should apply in the present case. 17. Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention guarantees to everyone who is the object of criminal proceedings the right to a final decision within a reasonable time on the charge against him. The Court points out that, under its case-law on the subject, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case. In this instance the circumstances call for an overall assessment (see, mutatis mutandis, the Obermeier judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 23, para. 72). The case was of some complexity, in particular at the stage of the preliminary investigation. In addition, the applicants themselves caused delays by several requests for the hearing to be adjourned. Nevertheless, the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" in the instant case a lapse of time of thirteen years and five months. The proceedings were characterised by lengthy periods of inactivity. In particular there was a delay of five years (from January 1975 to January 1980) between the placing of the case in the hands of the investigating judge and the questioning of the accused and witnesses, for which no explanation has been given by the Government. On 24 September 1984 the case was again referred to the investigating judge and a further period of one year and nine months elapsed before the applicants were once more committed for trial. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50) 18. Under Article 50 (art. 50), "If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is - completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party." A. Damage 19. Mrs Anna and Mrs Maria Adiletta and Mr Agovino each claimed compensation of 200,000,000 Italian lire for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. They cited the difficulties which they had encountered as a result of the length of the proceedings. 20. In the Government's view there was no evidence of pecuniary damage. At the most it would, in their opinion, be appropriate, if a violation were to be found, to award a modest sum for non-pecuniary damage. 21. On the first point the Court agrees with the Government. On the second, it shares the Commission's opinion that the applicants' claims are excessive. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, it awards each of them 15,000,000 lire for non-pecuniary damage. B. Costs and expenses 22. The applicants sought the reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in the Strasbourg proceedings. Their claims were as follows: (a) for Mrs Maria Adiletta, 10,800,000 lire for lawyer's fees and expenses relating to the procedure before the Court; (b) for Mrs Anna Adiletta, 13,200,000 lire for lawyer's fees before the Commission and the Court and 2,150,000 lire for expenses; (c) for Mr Agovino, 7,800,000 lire for lawyer's fees and expenses relating to the procedure before the Court; together with value-added tax and the contribution payable to the National Sickness and Pensions Fund. 23. Having regard to the information available to it, the observations submitted and its case-law in this field, the Court, making an assessment on an equitable basis, awards each of the applicants 4,000,000 lire in respect of costs and expenses. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. (art. 6-1) of the Convention; 2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to each of the three applicants 15,000,000 (fifteen million) Italian lire for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 (four million) lire for costs and expenses; 3. Dismisses the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction. Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 19 February 1991. Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL President Signed: Marc-André EISSEN Registrar BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII