Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> VALLON v. ITALY - 9621/81 [1985] ECHR 9 (3 June 1985)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1985/9.html
Cite as: (1991) 13 EHRR 433, [1985] ECHR 9
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
In the Vallon case *,
_______________
* Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 10/1984/82/129. The
second figure indicates the year in which the case was referred to the
Court and the first figure its place on the list of cases referred in
that year; the last two figures indicate, respectively, the case's
order on the list of cases and of originating applications (to the
Commission) referred to the Court since its creation.
_______________
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. G. Wiarda, President,
Mr. D. Evrigenis,
Mr. G. Lagergren,
Mr. L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr. B. Walsh,
Sir Vincent Evans,
Mr. C. Russo,
and also of Mr. M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr. H. Petzold, Deputy
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 May 1985,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The present case was referred to the Court by the European
Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 12 October 1984,
within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and
Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. The case
originated in an application (no. 9621/81) against the Italian
Republic lodged with the Commission on 23 October 1981 under
Article 25 (art. 25) by Mr. Daniel Vallon, a French national.
2. 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
purpose of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether or not
the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of
its obligations under Article 5 para. 3 and Article 6 para. 1
(art. 5-3, art. 6-1).
3. In response to the inquiry made in accordance with Rule 33
para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, Mr. Vallon stated that he wished
to take part in the proceedings pending before the Court and
designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).
4. In a letter of 16 November 1984, the French authorities
informed the Registrar that their Government did not wish to intervene
in the proceedings (Rule 33 para. 3 (b)).
5. The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included, as ex
officio members, Mr. C. Russo, the elected judge of Italian
nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and
Mr. G. Wiarda, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On
22 October 1984, the President drew by lot, in the presence of the
Registrar, the names of the five other members, namely .
Mr. Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mr. D. Evrigenis, Mr. L. Liesch,
Mr. B. Walsh and Mr. R. Macdonald (Article 43 in fine of the
Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently,
Mr. G. Lagergren, Mr. L.-E. Pettiti and Sir Vincent Evans, substitute
judges, replaced respectively Mr. Thór Vilhjálmsson and
Mr. Macdonald, who were prevented from taking part in the
consideration of the case, and Mr. Liesch, who had died on
4 March 1985 (Rule 22 para. 1 and Rule 24 para. 1).
6. Mr. Wiarda, who had assumed the office of President of the
Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), ascertained, through the Registrar, the
views of the Agent of the Italian Government ("the Government"), the
Delegate of the Commission and the representative of the applicant
regarding the necessity for a written procedure (Rule 37 para. 1). On
24 November 1984, the President directed that the Agent and the
representative should each have until 31 January 1985 to file a
memorial and that the Delegate should be entitled to reply in writing
within two months from the date of the transmission to him by the
Registrar of whichever of the aforesaid documents should last be
filed.
The memorial of Mr. Vallon - to whose representative the President
had granted leave, on 24 November 1984, to use the Italian language
(Rule 27 para. 3) - was received at the registry on 24 January 1985,
and that of the Government on 1 February.
In a letter of 20 February 1985, the Secretary to the Commission
informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit his observations
at the hearings.
7. After consulting, through the Registrar, the Agent of the
Government, the Commission's Delegate and the applicant's
representative, the President directed on 6 March that the oral
hearings should open on 27 March 1985 (Rule 38).
On 12 March, the President granted to the Agent of the Government
leave to use the Italian language at the hearings (Rule 27 para. 2).
8. The hearings were held in public at the Human Rights Building,
Strasbourg, on the appointed day. Immediately before they opened, the
Court had held a preparatory meeting.
There appeared before the Court:
- for the Government
Mr. A. Squillante, Section President at the Consiglio
di Stato, Head of the Diplomatic Legal
Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent,
Mr. D. Striani, retired judge, Counsel;
- for the Commission
Mr. S. Trechsel, Delegate;
- for the applicant
Mr. G.B. Gramatica, avvocato, Counsel.
9. The Court heard their addresses. Through their Agent, the
Government declared that they no longer contested the opinion of the
Commission (see paragraph 20 below). By letter of 25 April 1985,
received at the registry the following day, the Government notified
the Court that a friendly settlement had been reached with the
applicant; they accordingly requested that the case be struck out of
the list pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 of the Rules of Court.
Previously, on 17 April, the Registrar had received a letter from
Mr. Gramatica, informing him of the agreement in question; on 11 May,
the Registrar was advised by the Commission's Delegate that he would
have no objection to the application of Rule 48 para. 2.
AS TO THE FACTS
10. Mr. Daniel Vallon is a French citizen born in 1950. He was
wanted in France for murder and attempted murder. On 4 December 1976,
he was arrested in Genoa in execution of an international warrant of
arrest issued by the investigating judge in Clermont-Ferrand on
21 April 1976. When the French authorities requested the applicant's
extradition, he stated that he was opposed to such a course.
11. On 5 January 1977, the public prosecutor brought the case
before the investigating chamber of the Genoa Court of Appeal, which
had jurisdiction to express an opinion on the extradition request.
During the hearings, the applicant alleged that the Royal Decree,
no. 5726, of 30 June 1870, relating to the entry into force of the
Franco-Italian extradition treaty, was unconstitutional. On
16 January 1978, the investigating chamber referred the question to
the Constitutional Court.
12. On 15 June 1979, the Constitutional Court held that the Decree
was unconstitutional in so far as it authorised extradition even for
crimes punishable by death.
13. On 25 September 1979, the investigating chamber ruled that
extradition should not be granted; on 12 October, the public
prosecutor ordered the applicant's release.
Nonetheless, the applicant was not set free. This was because the
Minister of Justice, on 23 June, had demanded that Mr. Vallon be
prosecuted in Italy for the crimes committed in France (Article 10 of
the Penal Code); accordingly, the Genoa public prosecutor had issued a
new warrant of arrest on 26 June.
14. On 5 July and 1 August 1979, the applicant applied
unsuccessfully for release on the ground that he had already been
detained on remand for the maximum permissible period; his subsequent
appeals were also rejected.
15. Three letters rogatory were sent by the Italian investigating
judge to his French counterpart in Clermont-Ferrand.
In the first, dated 22 August 1979, the Italian judge requested the
communication of certain documents and the hearing of several
witnesses. On 18 October 1979, the French judge informed his Italian
colleague that he had dispatched all the papers to Italy on 20 July.
These were received by the Genoa investigating judge on 29 October.
The second letter rogatory, dated 15 April 1980, sought the hearing of
several persons. As the Italian judge did not receive any reply, he
sent requests for one on 27 June and 20 October 1980, and again on
9 January 1981. On 29 January, he was informed through Interpol that
his French colleague had sent a reply on 3 July 1980 through the
diplomatic channel.
A third letter rogatory was sent by the Italian judge on
28 March 1981.
16. On 2 September 1981, the Italian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs notified him of three notes from the French Embassy in Rome.
In the first two, dated 11 and 18 September 1980, the French
authorities stated that they could not accede to the request in the
second letter rogatory, as this might be contrary to French ordre
public. The last note, dated 26 May 1981, simply returned the third
letter rogatory unexecuted.
17. Meanwhile, on 28 May 1981, the investigating judge, without
knowing the answer to the letters rogatory, had committed Mr. Vallon
for trial on charges of murder and attempted murder.
On 22 January 1982, the applicant was summoned to appear before the
Genoa Assize Court, and on 16 March he was sentenced to fourteen
years' imprisonment (reclusione) for murder and acquitted on the
other charge.
Both the public prosecutor and Mr. Vallon entered appeals. On
14 January 1983, the Genoa Appeal Court of Assize confirmed the
sentence for murder. After changing the second count of the
indictment from attempted murder to assault, it held that the
prosecution was barred as a result of an amnesty. The judgment
became final on 18 January.
18. After the death penalty was abolished in France
(Act no. 81-908 of 10 October 1981), the public prosecutor's office in
Genoa again referred the matter to the investigating chamber.
On 27 January 1983, the investigating chamber once more ruled against
the applicant's extradition. He is still serving his sentence in Rome.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
19. In his application of 23 October 1981 to the Commission
(no. 9621/81), Mr. Vallon complained about the proceedings instituted
against him in Italy. The complaint concerned the length both of his
detention on remand (Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention) (art. 5-3)
and of the proceedings (Article 6 para. 1) (art. 6-1).
20. The Commission declared the application admissible on
13 October 1983.
In its report of 8 May 1984 (Article 31 of the Convention) (art. 31),
the Commission expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been
violations of Article 5 para. 3 and Article 6 para. 1 (art. 5-3,
art. 6-1). The full text of its opinion is reproduced as an annex
to the present judgment.
AS TO THE LAW
21. The Court has been notified of a friendly settlement reached
between the Italian Government and Mr. Vallon (see paragraph 9
above). The Government have acknowledged that there has been
violation on their part of the European Convention on Human Rights in
the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant. They have
submitted to the applicant a proposal, which has been accepted by his
counsel, to pay to the applicant compensation of six million Lire,
one million thereof being intended to cover his legal costs.
22. In the light of this agreement, the Government have requested
the Court to strike the case out of its list in accordance with
Rule 48 para. 2 of the Rules of Court, which is worded as follows:
"When the Chamber is informed of a friendly settlement ... it may,
after consulting, if necessary, the Parties, the Delegates of the
Commission and the applicant, strike the case out of the list."
23. The Court takes formal note of the friendly settlement reached
by the Government and the applicant. As to the existence of a
"general interest", the Court finds that there are no reasons of
public policy (ordre public) justifying the continuation of the
proceedings (Rule 48 para. 4). In particular, the Court recalls that,
in several earlier cases, it has already determined, in the context of
Article 5 para. 3 and Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-3,
art. 6-1), legal issues analogous to those arising in the instant
case, thereby clarifying the scope of the engagements undertaken by
the Contracting States in these areas (see the following judgments:
Wemhoff, 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7; Neumeister, 27 June 1968,
Series A no. 8; Stögmüller, 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9;
Matznetter, 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10; Ringeisen,
16 July 1971, Series A no. 13; Eckle, 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51;
Foti and Others, 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56; Corigliano,
10 December 1982, Series A no. 57).
Consequently, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the case out of the list.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing under Rule 54
para. 2, second sub-paragraph, of the Rules of Court on 3 June 1985.
Signed: Gérard WIARDA
President
Signed: Marc-André EISSEN
Registrar