12955/87

         In the case of Andreucci v. Italy*,           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  B. Walsh,         Mr  C. Russo,         Mr  A. Spielmann,         Mr  N. Valticos,         Mr  A.N. Loizou,         Mr  J.M. Morenilla,         Mr  F. Bigi,   and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy Registrar,           Having deliberated in private on 30 October 1991 and 24 January 1992,           Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:   _______________ Notes by the Registrar   * The case is numbered 33/1991/285/356.  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 Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990. _______________   PROCEDURE   1.      The case was referred to the Court on 8 March 1991 by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention.  It originated in an application (no. 12955/87) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national, Mr Aldo Andreucci, on 23 May 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 para. 1 (art. 6-1).   2.      In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 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).   3.      On 23 April 1991 the President of the Court decided that, pursuant to Rule 21 para. 6 and in the interests of the proper administration of justice, this case and the cases of Diana, Ridi, Casciaroli, Manieri, Mastrantonio, Idrocalce S.r.l., Owners' Services Ltd, Cardarelli, Golino, Taiuti, Maciariello, Manifattura FL, Steffano, Ruotolo, Vorrasi, Cappello, G. v. Italy, Caffè Roversi S.p.a., Gana, Barbagallo, Cifola, Pandolfelli and Palumbo, Arena, Pierazzini, Tusa, Cooperativa Parco Cuma, Serrentino, Cormio, Lorenzi, Bernardini and Gritti and Tumminelli* should be heard by the same Chamber.   _______________ * Cases nos. 3/1991/255/326 to 13/1991/265/336; 15/1991/267/338; 16/1991/268/339; 18/1991/270/341; 20/1991/272/343; 22/1991/274/345; 24/1991/276/347; 25/1991/277/348; 36/1991/288/359; 38/1991/290/361; 40/1991/292/363 to 44/1991/296/367; 50/1991/302/373; 51/1991/303/374; 58/1991/310/381; 59/1991/311/382; 61/1991/313/384 _______________   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 para. 3 (b)).  On the same day, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher, Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr I. Foighel, Mr J.M. Morenilla and Mr F. Bigi (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).           Subsequently, Mr B. Walsh, Mr A.N. Loizou and Mr N. Valticos, substitute judges, replaced respectively Mr Pinheiro Farinha and Sir Vincent Evans, who had both resigned and whose successors had taken up their duties before the deliberations held on 30 October, and Mr Foighel, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rules 2 para. 3, 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).   5.      Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Italian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the Commission and the applicant's lawyer on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38).  In accordance with the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the memorial of the applicant - whom the President had authorised to use the Italian language (Rule 27 para. 3) - on 15 July 1991 and the Government's memorial on 16 July.  By a letter received on 22 August, the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate did not consider it necessary to reply thereto.   6.      On 28 June 1991 the Chamber had decided to dispense with a hearing, having found that the conditions for such derogation from the usual procedure were satisfied (Rules 26 and 38).   7.      On 28 August the Commission produced the file on the proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the President's instructions.   8.      On 10 October and 5 November, respectively, the Government and the Commission filed their observations on the applicant's claims for just satisfaction (Article 50 of the Convention) (art. 50).   AS TO THE FACTS   9.      Mr Aldo Andreucci is an Italian national and resides in Rome.  The facts established by the Commission pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as follows (paragraphs 16-19 of its report):           "16.    On 18 March 1985 the applicant brought an action for         damages before the Rome District Court in respect of the         injuries caused by an assault on him during a dispute with a         Mr S. and his parents.           17.     The investigation commenced at the hearing of         30 April 1985 and continued at hearings on 21 October 1985         and 18 February 1986, on which date the District Court         directed that the opinion of a medical expert be taken.  The         hearing of 11 March 1986 was adjourned owing to the absence         of the expert appointed.  The expert was sworn in at the         hearing on 19 May 1986 and was given ninety days as from         5 June 1986 to lodge his opinion.  As the deadline was not         met, the hearing of 3 November 1986 was postponed to         2 December 1986.           18.     At the close of the hearing on 9 February 1987, the         investigation was concluded and the investigating judge         directed that the hearing before the appropriate chamber of         the court take place on 22 February 1989.  At an unspecified         date, the District Court allowed the applicant's claim.           19.     The text of the decision was lodged with the         registry on 15 October 1989. ..."   10.     Before the European Court, the applicant confirmed that no appeal had been lodged.  On 14 November 1989 the defendants paid to him the amount awarded by the District Court.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   11.     Mr Andreucci lodged his application with the Commission on 23 May 1987.  He complained of the length of the civil proceedings brought by him and relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.   12.     On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application (no. 12955/87) admissible.  In its report of 15 January 1991 (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 228-G of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry. _______________   AS TO THE LAW   I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)   13.     The applicant claimed that his civil action had not been tried within a "reasonable time" as required under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:           "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations         ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a         reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ..."           The Government disputed this view, whereas the Commission accepted it.   14.     The period to be taken into consideration began on 18 March 1985 when the proceedings against Mr S. and his parents were instituted in the Rome District Court.  It ended, at the latest, on 14 November 1989 (see paragraph 10 above).   15.     The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in this instance call for an overall assessment.   16.     The Government invoked the complexity of the facts and the excessive workload of the District Court.  In addition, the applicant had not requested that his case be dealt with more rapidly.           Mr Andreucci, on the other hand, considered that the case had been a very simple one; the period of just over two years between the final investigation hearing (9 February 1987) and the trial hearing (22 February 1989) had in his opinion, in itself, infringed Article 6 (art. 6).           The Commission took the view that "the complex features of the case" were not sufficient to justify the length of the proceedings.  It drew attention to a period of inactivity from 9 February 1987 to 22 February 1989.   17.     The Court notes that the investigation took almost twenty-three months, after which two years elapsed before the trial hearing.           As regards the first of these periods, the investigating judge failed to carry out with proper diligence his duty of supervising the work of the expert (see the Capuano v. Italy judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 13, para. 30), but the number of witnesses called must be taken into account, as must the fact that the examination of one of them necessitated a request for evidence to be taken on commission.           The second period appears on the face of it excessive.  The Government pleaded the backlog of cases in the Rome District Court, but Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements (see, inter alia, the Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17). The period in question would nevertheless seem to be acceptable if viewed in the context of the total duration of the proceedings, as it must be.   18.     Accordingly, the delays which occurred in the proceedings were not so substantial as to violate Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).   FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY           Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).           Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 February 1992.   Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL         President   Signed: Marc-André EISSEN         Registrar