CASAGRANDE proti Itálii

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 40183/98

by Pietro Antonio CASAGRANDE

against Italy

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 10 September 1998, the following members being present:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIČ

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 11 August 1997 by Pietro Antonio CASAGRANDE against Italy and registered on 10 March 1998 under file No. 40183/98;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1932, and currently residing in Ostia Lido (Rome).

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 1978, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on charges of smuggling counterfeit clocks.

In a judgment of 4 November 1985, the Naples District Court convicted the applicant to a fine of 14,000,000 lire. The applicant having appealed against this decision, the Naples Court of Appeal held, in a judgment of 13 October 1988, filed with the registry on 20 October 1988, that the charges against the applicant were time-barred.

On 7 December 1992, the Head Office of the Naples Custom-House issued an order for payment of customs duties against the applicant. The applicant was required to pay the total sum of 32,655,105 lire, the unpaid tax amounting to 9,955,825 lire while 22,699,280 lire were due by way of default interest. This order was served on the applicant on 5 January 1993.

On 28 January 1993, the applicant, seeking the withdrawal of the order of 7 December 1992, summoned the National Revenue to appear before the Naples District Court. On an unspecified date, the District Court suspended the enforcement of the order for payment.

According to the information given by the applicant, the case was adjourned several times, and on 26 February 1998 the District Court again adjourned the proceedings, this time to 16 June 1998, of its own motion.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings he instituted before the Naples District Court. He further alleges that the order for payment was issued out of time and that requiring him to pay the statutory rate of interest from the date of the offence (1978) and not from the date of the order for payment (7 December 1992) is contrary to the presumption of innocence. He invokes Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (a) of the Convention.

2. Without invoking any provision of the Convention, the applicant complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him on charges of smuggling.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings he instituted before the Naples District Court. He further alleges that the order for payment was issued out of time and that requiring him to pay the statutory rate of interest from the date of the offence (1978) and not from the date of the order for payment (7 December 1992) is contrary to the presumption of innocence. He invokes Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (a) of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, read as follows:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

a. to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; ..."

The Commission must first determine whether Article 6 is applicable to the proceedings at issue.

In this context, it recalls that according to its case-law, Article 6 is not applicable in principle, under the head "civil rights and obligations", to proceedings relating to the assessment of taxes, even if the fiscal measures complained of affected pecuniary rights (see, among a large number of other authorities, No. 8903/80, Dec. 8.7.80, D.R. 21, pp. 246 and 247; No. 9908/82, Dec. 4.5.83, D.R. 32, pp. 266 and 272; No. 11189/84, Dec. 11.12.86, D.R. 50, pp. 121 and 140; No. 13013/87, Dec. 14.12.88, D.R. 58, pp. 163 and 189; Bendenoun v. France, Comm. Report 10.12.92, para. 58, Eur. Court HR, Series A no. 284, p. 27; see also Eur. Court HR, Schouten and Meldrum v. the Netherlands judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 304, pp. 20 and 21, para. 50).

As regards the existence of a "criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6, the Commission observes that the amount of the unpaid tax was increased only by default interest and that no tax surcharges have been imposed on the applicant. Moreover, the substantial amount of the default interest cannot be interpreted as conferring a criminal connotation on the proceedings at issue (see No. 29998/96, Dec. 26.2.97, unpublished; No. 30922/96, Dec. 14.1.98, unpublished).

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2.

2. Without invoking any provision of the Convention, the applicant complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him on charges of smuggling.

However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts submitted by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention as, in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention, it finds that the final decision regarding the criminal proceedings at issue is the judgment of the Naples Court of Appeal of 13 October 1988, filed with the registry on 20 October 1988, which is more than six months before the date on which the application was submitted.

It follows that this complaint must be rejected according to Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber