CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 février 1993

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. February 1993 Messina v. Italy - 13803/88 Judgment 26.2.1993 Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings: violation Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Inspection of the applicant’s correspondence during his detention on remand: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ("reasonable time") A.   Period to be taken into consideration Proceedings instituted more than seven years and four months previously; still pending. B.   Applicable criteria Reasonableness of the length of proceedings: to be determined 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 called for an overall assessment. Certain difficulties linked to the number of persons to be questioned and witnesses to be heard, as well as to the need for evidence to be taken on commission – length unreasonable for proceedings which were still not completed. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION Whether there had in fact been “interference by a public authority”: a matter of contention. Dispute concerned exact circumstances of the case (failure to forward correspondence) rather than a legal problem: the Court had to reach its decision on basis of available evidence. A Contracting State could not discharge its obligations under Article   8 merely by supplying record of a prisoner’s incoming mail – no certainty that the items in question reached their addressee. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION No evidence of any pecuniary damage deriving from the violations found Non-pecuniary damage: sum awarded Applicant made no claim for reimbursement of costs and expenses: not a matter for the Court to examine of its own motion. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to the applicant (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes