[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> TRIGGIANI v. ITALY - 13509/88 [1991] ECHR 20 (19 February 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1991/20.html Cite as: [1991] ECHR 20

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the Triggiani case*,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance

with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the

relevant provisions of the Rules of Court***, as a Chamber composed

of the following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Sir Vincent Evans,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr J. De Meyer,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr A.N. Loizou,

Mr J.M. Morenilla,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 October 1990 and

24 January 1991,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 17/1990/208/268. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since

its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating

applications to the Commission.

** As amended by Protocol No. 8, which came into force on

1 January 1990.

*** The amendments to the Rules of Court which came into force on

1 April 1989 are applicable to this case.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court on 16 February 1990 by the

European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), within the

three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 (art.

32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application

(no. 13509/88) against the Italian Republic lodged with the

Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national, Mr

Emanuele Triggiani, on 19 November 1987.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48

(art. 44, art. 48) art. and to the declaration whereby Italy

recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46)

(art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as

to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the

respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33

§ 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he wished

to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would

represent him (Rule 30). On 29 March 1990 the President of the

Court granted him leave to use the Italian language (Rule 27 § 3).

3. On 21 February 1990 the President decided that, pursuant to

Rule 21 § 6 and in the interests of the proper administration of

justice, this case and the cases of Motta, Manzoni, Pugliese (I),

Alimena, Frau, Ficara, Viezzer, Angelucci, Maj, Girolami, Ferraro,

Mori, Colacioppo and Adiletta and Others* should be heard by the

same Chamber.

_______________

* Cases of Motta (4/1990/195/255), Manzoni (7/1990/198/258),

Pugliese(I) (8/1990/199/259), Alimena (9/1990/200/260), Frau

(10/1990/201/261), Ficara (11/1990/202/262), Viezzer

(12/1990/203/263), Angelucci (13/1990/204/264), Maj

(14/1990/205/265), Girolami (15/1990/206/266), Ferraro

(16/1990/207/267), Mori (18/1990/209/269), Colacioppo

(19/1990/210/270), Adiletta and Others (20/1990/211/271-273)

_______________

4. The Chamber to be constituted for this purpose included ex

officio Mr C. Russo, the elected judge of Italian nationality

(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the

President of the Court (Rule 21 § 3 (b)). On 26 March 1990, in the

presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of

the other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher, Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Sir Vincent Evans, Mr J. De Meyer, Mr N. Valticos, Mr A.N. Loizou

and Mr J.M. Morenilla (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and

Rule 21 § 4) (art. 43).

5. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber

(Rule 21 § 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of

the Italian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the

Commission and the applicant's lawyer on the need for a written

procedure (Rule 37 § 1). In accordance with the order made in

consequence, the Registrar received the applicant's memorial on 17

July 1990 and the Government's memorial on 31 July. By a letter

received on 31 August, the Secretary to the Commission informed the

Registrar that the Delegate would submit his observations at the

hearing.

6. Having consulted, through the Registrar, those who would be

appearing before the Court, the President directed on 29 August

1990 that the oral proceedings should open on 1 October 1990

(Rule 38).

7. On 31 August 1990 the Commission produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the

President's instructions.

8. The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building,

Strasbourg, on the appointed day. The Court had held a preparatory

meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr G. Raimondi, magistrato, seconded to

the Diplomatic Legal Service of the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Co-Agent;

(b) for the Commission

Mr S. Trechsel, Delegate;

(c) for the applicant

Mr T. Castagnino, avvocato, Counsel.

The Court heard addresses by the above-mentioned

representatives, as well as their answers to its questions.

On 25 October the registry received the Government's

observations on the applicant's claims for just satisfaction.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mr Emanuele Triggiani, an Italian national, resides in Rome.

When the criminal proceedings were instituted against him, he was

a bank employee. The facts established by the Commission pursuant

to Article 31 § 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as follows

(paragraphs 12-23 of its report, see paragraph 12 below):

"12. The applicant was arrested on 18 August 1975, under an

arrest warrant dated 14 August 1975, issued by the Rome

investigating judge, on charges of fraud, forgery and use of

forged documents, and criminal association.

13. The applicant, a bank employee, was charged with having

obtained a number of chequebooks on the account of a client of

the bank in which he worked, and of passing them on to

accomplices who had forged the client's signature and thus been

able to pay very large sums of money into accounts opened under

a false name.

The charges brought against the applicant were based on

a police report drawn up following the inquiry made as a result

of the complaint lodged by the account-holder. This report was

forwarded to the Rome public prosecutor's office on 8 March

1975.

14. After his arrest, the applicant was examined on two

occasions by the Rome investigating judge, on 19 August and

18 October 1975. No other investigation procedure was carried

out as regards the applicant. However, as the case involved

several other defendants, the file records a number of

procedures concerning the legal position of these persons.

15. The applicant was held in custody until the end of the

maximum period for detention on remand. His release was

ordered on 18 February 1976.

16. The applicant was committed for trial on 12 May 1978.

On 14 July 1978 the Rome District Court summoned him to appear

on 22 January 1979. The trial, which involved twelve

defendants, lasted from 22 January 1979 to 30 September 1981.

Fourteen hearings had to be scheduled (22 January 1979, 26

March 1979, 9 April 1979, 30 June 1979, 24 November 1979, 13

February 1980, 7 May 1980, 9 July 1980, 26 November 1980, 25

March 1981, 3 June 1981, 17 June 1981, 3 July 1981, 30

September 1981). However, not all of these hearings were given

over to examination of the case: seven hearings were adjourned

for reasons connected with the internal organisation of the

court. At the hearing on 9 April 1979 the court decided to

postpone the hearing to 30 June 1979 with the parties' consent

'bearing in mind the need to deal with a number of other cases

concerning defendants now in custody and to enable the parties

to deal with the case properly ...' . On 30 June 1979 the

parties requested that argument be taken without interruption.

As this turned out to be impossible, the court adjourned the

hearing to 24 November 1979 and requested that the registry set

no further cases down for that day.

17. On 24 November 1979, the hearing could not take place

as the composition of the court had changed. The same occurred

on 7 May 1980. On 9 July 1980 the court of its own motion

postponed the hearing to 26 November 1980. On 25 March 1981,

as priority had to be given to hearings involving defendants

held in custody, the court postponed the hearing again; the

hearing on 3 July 1981 was also postponed.

Two hearings were adjourned owing to protest action

either by judges or by lawyers.

The hearing of 17 June 1981 was adjourned at the

request of counsel for one of the accused.

18. In all, those hearings actually given over to

examination of the case were the following: 22 January 1979,

lasting 1 hour and 45 minutes; 26 March 1979, lasting 30

minutes; 3 June 1981, lasting 1 hour and 5 minutes; and lastly,

30 September 1981 which began at 3 p.m and ended at 9.30 p.m,

after deliberations on the judgment in chambers.

19. On 30 September 1981 the applicant was acquitted for

lack of evidence. The judgment was filed with the court

registry on 11 November 1981.

20. The applicant appealed against the decision, believing

that he should be totally cleared of suspicion.

On 3 September 1985 he was summoned to appear before

the Rome Court of Appeal at a hearing on 21 October 1985. Only

the last of five hearings successively fixed for consideration

of the case (21 October 1985, 31 January 1986, 31 October 1986,

3 March 1987 and 28 October 1987) actually took place; the

others had to be postponed for various reasons not attributable

to the defendants.

21. By judgment of 28 October 1987, filed with the registry

on an unspecified date, the Rome Court of Appeal declared the

applicant not guilty of the offences with which he had been

charged.

22. In the meantime the applicant, who had been suspended

from his job on 12 September 1978, was dismissed in November

1978.

23. Moreover, the fact that it was impossible for him to

provide for his family, and the suspicions surrounding him,

allegedly drove his wife to seek a divorce. Separation was

pronounced on 27 July 1977."

10. According to the information supplied to the European Court,

the appeal court's judgment of 28 October 1987, which became final

in relation to the applicant on 1 November 1987, was filed with the

registry on 30 May 1988.

In addition, Mr Triggiani instituted proceedings contesting the

validity of his dismissal. On 2 March 1979 the labour court stayed

the proceedings under Article 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

because the decision depended on the outcome of the criminal

proceedings brought against the applicant. It resumed examination

of the case on 15 March 1988. The next hearing was scheduled to be

held on 9 November 1990.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. In his application of 19 November 1987 to the Commission

(no. 13509/88) Mr Triggiani complained of his arrest and the lack

of an effective remedy (Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention)

(art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-4). He also complained of the length

of the proceedings (Article 6 § 1) (art. 6-1).

12. On 5 September 1989 the Commission declared the application

admissible as regards the last complaint. On 7 October 1988 it had

declared it inadmissible for the rest. 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 § 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-B

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 § 1 (art. 6-1)

14. The applicant claimed that his case had not been examined

within a "reasonable time" as required under Article 6 § 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

14 August 1975, the date on which the investigating judge ordered

Mr Triggiani's arrest; it ended on 1 November 1987

(see paragraph 10 above).

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 § 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, § 72).

The proceedings were undoubtedly of some complexity owing to

the nature of the facts to be established, but the applicant did

nothing to slow them down and there were lengthy periods involved

in the investigation of the case (14 August 1975 to 12 May 1978),

the trial at first instance (12 May 1978 to 30 September 1981) and

the appeal proceedings (11 November 1981 to 21 October 1985), for

which no adequate explanation has been given by the Government. As

pointed out by the Commission, and not refuted by the Government,

most of the numerous postponements of the trial proceedings at

first instance were due to reasons connected with the internal

organisation of the Rome District Court. It follows that the Court

cannot regard as "reasonable" in the instant case a lapse of time

of more than twelve years and two months.

There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 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. Mr Triggiani claimed compensation of 150,000,000 Italian lire

for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which he had allegedly

sustained as a result of the length of the proceedings.

20. In view of the length of time for which the applicant was

unjustly deprived of his salary, and the non-pecuniary damage

sustained by him, the Commission considered the amount sought to be

reasonable.

The Government, on the other hand, regarded the applicant's

claims as obviously excessive.

21. The Court accepts that Mr Triggiani clearly suffered pecuniary

and non-pecuniary damage; it awards him 150,000,000 lire under this

head.

B. Costs and expenses

22. The applicant sought the reimbursement of a total of

5,200,000 lire in respect of lawyer's fees and other expenses.

23. Having regard to the information available to it, the

observations submitted and its case-law in this field, the Court

awards him the full amount.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention;

2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to Mr Triggiani

150,000,000 (one hundred and fifty million) Italian lire for

pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 5,200,000 (five million

two hundred thousand) lire for costs and expenses.

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