[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MORI v. ITALY - 13552/88 [1991] ECHR 16 (19 February 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1991/16.html Cite as: [1991] ECHR 16

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the Mori 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 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 18/1990/209/269. 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. 13552/88) against the

Italian Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25

(art. 25) by an Italian national, Mrs Bruna Mori, on 26

November 1987.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48

(art. 44, art. 48) 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

she wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the

lawyer who would represent her (Rule 30).

3. On 21 February 1990 the President of the Court 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, Triggiani, 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), Triggiani (17/1990/208/268), Colacioppo

(19/1990/210/270), Adiletta et autres (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 24 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

Mrs W. Viscardini Donà, avvocato, Counsel.

The Court heard addresses by the above-mentioned

representatives.

On 25 October and 16 November, respectively, the registry

received the observations of the Commission and the Government

on the applicant's claims for just satisfaction.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mrs Bruna Mori, an Italian national, resides at Genoa.

She is a teacher. The facts established by the Commission

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

as follows (paragraphs 14-22 of its report, see paragraph 11

below):

"14. Proceedings were brought against the applicant

for defamation following a complaint ('querela') lodged

with the Genoa prosecuting authorities on 12 January 1981

by X, a judge at the Regional Administrative Court, in

which he alleged that the applicant had asserted in

insulting terms that he had, out of personal interest,

induced the Administrative Court to deliver a judgment

unfavourable to the applicant.

15. These proceedings were the outcome of a series of

complaints and accusations in which the applicant and X

were the active parties.

In a complaint against X, lodged with the Genoa

public prosecutor on 3 January 1981, the applicant

accused X of intimidating acts towards her.

X was heard by the judicial authorities and, in

turn, lodged a complaint against the applicant for false

accusation and for defamation in respect of other acts.

A single file was opened concerning the

complaints as a whole but no charge was brought against

the parties pending further investigation of the facts.

16. The applicant states that she learned by chance

in May 1982 that proceedings had been instituted against

her.

She was formally notified of the charges against

her on 13 October 1982 on the occasion of her examination

by the Genoa prosecuting authorities, before which she

had appeared voluntarily to this end.

17. The investigation continued. On 9 February 1983, X

applied for an extension of the time-limit fixed for the

citation of witnesses while intimating that he might withdraw

his complaint.

18. On 9 June 1983, the Genoa prosecuting authorities

passed the case file to the Genoa magistrate's court

('pretore').

On 21 May 1986, the applicant appeared once more, of

her own accord, before the Genoa magistrate's court for

examination.

On 23 December 1986, the applicant addressed a letter

to the magistrate's court in which she waived the application

of an amnesty - provided for by an Act of 16 December 1986 -

and called for her discharge or a date to be fixed for a

hearing.

19. On 26 March 1987, the magistrate's court issued a

summons for the applicant to appear at a hearing on 27 April

1987.

The hearing took place in two sessions on 27 and

28 April 1987; at the latter session, the applicant was

acquitted on the grounds of insufficient evidence

('assoluzione per insufficienza di prove'). The grounds of

the judgment were filed with the court registry on 23 May

1987.

20. The applicant appealed against the judgment with a

view to obtaining her unqualified acquittal. The Genoa

prosecuting authorities appealed to secure her conviction. On

21 July 1987, the file was passed to the District Court

sitting in an appellate capacity.

21. On 12 August 1987, the applicant asked for a date to

be fixed for the appeal proceedings, noting that the length of

proceedings would otherwise prevent her from seeing her

innocence established, given that the offence of which she was

accused would become time-barred in June 1988.

However, on the date of submission of the application

(26 November 1987), no date had yet been fixed for the appeal

proceedings. Moreover, the President of the Chamber of the

Appeal Court assigned to decide on the case, wishing to

withdraw from the case, passed the file to the presiding judge

of the Genoa Court so that the latter could decide on the

question of his replacement (Article 63 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure).

22. On 30 March 1988, the Genoa District Court pronounced

the applicant's unqualified acquittal. On 21 April 1988, the

prosecuting authorities appealed to the Court of Cassation.

On 22 September 1988, the Court of Cassation, sitting

in private, decided that the offence was now time-barred."

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

10. In her application of 26 November 1987 to the Commission

(no. 13552/88) Mrs Mori complained of the length of the

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

Convention.

11. On 5 September 1989 the Commission declared the

application admissible. 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-C 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

12. 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)

13. The applicant claimed that her 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.

14. The period to be taken into consideration began on

13 October 1982, the date on which the applicant was formally

notified of the criminal proceedings. It ended on 22

September 1988 with the Court of Cassation's judgment finding

that the offence was time-barred.

15. 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 this case.

16. 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).

In fact it was a very simple case. Moreover, the

applicant's conduct did not give rise to any delay and indeed

she took steps to expedite the proceedings. It follows that

the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" in the instant case a

lapse of time of nearly six years.

There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1

(art. 6-1).

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)

17. 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

18. Mrs Mori claimed, without citing any figures,

compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

She referred to the feeling of uncertainty and anxiety which

she had experienced for a long time regarding the outcome and

the repercussions of the proceedings instituted againt her,

and the impossibility of obtaining a final acquittal owing to

the fact that the proceedings were time-barred.

19. The Government contended that there had been no pecuniary

damage. At the most, in their opinion, it would be

appropriate, if a violation were to be found, to award a

modest sum for non-pecuniary damage.

20. The Court accepts that the applicant must have suffered

some non-pecuniary damage on account of the failure to conduct

the proceedings within a reasonable time. Making an

assessment on an equitable basis, it awards her 2,000,000

Italian lire under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

21. In respect of the proceedings before the Commission and

the Court, the applicant sought the reimbursement of 9,300,000

lire for lawyer's fees and 1,630,000 lire for expenses.

22. 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 her

5,000,000 lire under this head.

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 Mrs Mori

2,000,000 (two million) Italian lire for non-pecuniary

damage and 5,000,000 (five million) lire for costs and

expenses;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim 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