The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s house , car and premises used for commercial activities to be searched in view of the strong suspicion that he had been a member of a criminal group and had committed offences concerning property and documents .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested and on DATE he was remanded in custody by ORG on suspicion of forging documents , financial fraud and membership of a criminal gang . The court considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence , given the fact that he had had close personal and business connections with several other persons charged with the same offences . On DATE ORG upheld the decision to detain him .

NORP In decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention , holding that there was a contradiction between the applicant ’s statements and the evidence collected in the course of the proceedings . In addition , some documents had been forged and the prosecuting authorities could not yet identify all the perpetrators of the offences . The court made reference to the activities already carried out and gave a precise indication of the evidence that still had to be taken . Consequently , it decided that it was indispensable to separate the applicant from the other suspects and from the evidence which had not yet been secured . The court also relied on the serious nature of the charges against the applicant and the severity of the penalty he faced .

On DATE ORG extended the charges against the applicant .

The applicant ’s detention was prolonged on DATE by ORG and subsequently by ORG on DATE . The courts relied on the same grounds as previously invoked by ORG . They pointed to the complexity of the case and the existence of a fear of collusion , given the applicant ’s role in the criminal gang and the considerable number of witnesses acquainted with the applicant who had yet to give evidence .

On DATE a bill of indictment concerning QUANTITY persons was filed with ORG . The applicant was indicted on charges of multiple fraud , insurance fraud , misuse of property and membership of a criminal gang . The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and to obtain over CARDINAL other pieces of evidence .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , holding that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant and other defendants with whom he maintained close personal or business relations would tamper with evidence by inducing others to give false statements . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that decision .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG held hearings . Owing to the fact that many of the accused had entered into a plea bargain , the prosecutor filed a new bill of indictment and the hearings scheduled for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE were adjourned until DATE in order to give the accused the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the new bill .

Hearings were held on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ( adjourned on an application by the accused ) and DATE ( a hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the lawyer of CARDINAL of the accused was absent ) , and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

Meanwhile , the applicant ’s detention was prolonged on DATE and DATE ( an appeal by the applicant was dismissed on DATE ) , DATE and DATE . The court relied on the fear of collusion stemming from the fact that many of the witnesses had not yet given evidence and that the members of the criminal group had maintained close relations . In particular , the court stressed that during the preparatory proceedings the defendants had illegally tried to contact each other . In its last decision the court also stated that the applicant and another defendant had twice lodged applications to adjourn the hearings at which it was to take evidence from the former co - accused , who possessed the greatest knowledge about the GPE activities .

On DATE ORG made an application to ORG under LAW of LAW , requesting the prolongation of the applicant ’s detention beyond the statutory time - limit of DATE . On DATE the Court of Appeal prolonged his detention until DATE , partly allowing the application . The court stressed that the proceedings had almost been completed and that there was therefore no need to prolong the applicant ’s detention for the whole period requested . Its decision was upheld on DATE .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned until DATE owing to the illness of CARDINAL of the defendants . The hearing set down for DATE had to be adjourned owing to the absence of a witness . It was held on DATE .

Further hearings were held on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned at the request of CARDINAL of the accused .

On DATE ORG filed another bill of indictment against the applicant and some of his co - defendants .

In the course of the proceedings , the applicant lodged several unsuccessful applications for release from detention , which were dismissed on DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , and DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed a second application by ORG for the prolongation of the applicant ’s detention . The appellate court held that ORG had failed to conclude the proceedings within the expected time - frame and that the applicant should not have to suffer the negative consequences of that fact . It further argued that the proceedings could be terminated in the course of the forthcoming hearings , given that there remained CARDINAL witness to be examined and that in the event of his absence his statements could be read out . On DATE an appeal by the prosecutor against that decision was dismissed .

Hearings were held on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

At the hearing on DATE the court decided to place the applicant under police supervision and to prohibit him from leaving the country .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment , convicting the applicant and sentencing him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for a total of CARDINAL offences , most of them committed when acting within an organised criminal group .

NORP The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its prolongation , release from detention and rules governing other , so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 8 with regard to release of transcripts into the public domain;Violation of Art. 8 with regard to reading out of transcripts at trial;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant , an NORP national born in DATE , was the general secretary of ORG ( ORG ) from DATE . From DATE to DATE he was Prime Minister of GPE . As of DATE ( according to the applicant ) or DATE ( according to the NORP authorities ) , he lived in GPE ( GPE ) .

The proceedings to which this application relates were part of the criminal proceedings brought by ORG during the so - called “ clean hands ” ( mani pulite ) campaign .

DATE , ORG issued DATE notices of prosecution ( avvisi di ORG ) in respect of the applicant , in particular for corruption , dishonest receipt of money by a public officer , concealment of dishonest gain and offences against the legislation on the financing of political parties .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG also issued notices of prosecution in respect of the applicant for dishonest receipt of money by a public officer , offences against the legislation on the financing of political parties , corruption and misuse of public office .

The prosecutions against the applicant and other figures in politics , business and public institutions received attention from the media .

Amongst the cases against the applicant was that of PERSON , which concerned payments of large sums of money made DATE by a number of firms to the representatives of political parties and the influence the latter exerted on the board of directors of the ORG company with a view to awarding contracts to those firms in connection with works on the GPE underground system .

On DATE the investigating judge committed the applicant and CARDINAL co - defendants for trial before ORG . The applicant was charged , in particular , with interference with freedom of contract and corruption .

The first trial hearing took place on DATE . The applicant was not present and ORG accordingly declared him absent ( contumace ) . Some of the accused requested and obtained a plea bargain , while the position of some other accused persons was separated from that of the applicant . The trial before ORG thus continued only against the applicant and CARDINAL co - defendants . The ORG company joined the proceedings as a civil party .

In a decision of DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody . On DATE counsel for the applicant informed ORG that he had learned of that decision through the press and asked for a copy of it . On DATE ORG declared the applicant to be latitante , that is , to be deliberately evading the court 's jurisdiction .

The applicant appealed against the decision of DATE . In an order of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal . The court held that once the preliminary investigation was completed it was for the trial court to consider whether there were substantial indications of guilt and whether in particular there was still a danger that the applicant would abscond . In this respect the court noted that since DATE it had been impossible to find the applicant in GPE and that in the various proceedings brought against him a number of coercive measures had been ordered that could not be enforced . Moreover , in judgments of DATE and DATE the applicant had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment . In ORG view , the applicant 's lengthy stay abroad demonstrated his determination to evade the coercive measures ordered against him in DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG sought an order for the interception of the applicant 's telephone calls between GPE and his home in GPE . The interceptions were aimed at gathering information with a view to arresting the applicant .

NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed those applications with a view to facilitating the arrest of the applicant . The court noted that the interceptions had a legal basis and were essential to supervise the applicant 's movements and his personal and international relations which had allowed him to continue absconding . The interceptions , carried out by a specialist branch of the NORP police , began on DATE and were concluded on DATE .

At the same time , ORG sought an order for the interception of the applicant 's telephone calls between GPE and his home in GPE in the context of a set of criminal proceedings for defamation which were pending against the applicant . The GPE investigating judge allowed the interceptions with a view to gathering evidence against the applicant and to identifying the accomplices . The interceptions , carried out by a specialist branch of the NORP police , began on DATE . The prosecution applied for CARDINAL extensions of the duration of the interceptions , which were allowed by the investigating judge on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , and on CARDINAL and DATE . A request for a further extension was refused on CARDINAL DATE . The interceptions were thus concluded on DATE .

At the hearing on DATE in the case of PERSON , ORG in charge of the applicant 's case , Mr PERSON , filed the transcripts of the telephone interceptions with the registry and asked that they be admitted as evidence against the applicant . The prosecution argued that they were necessary to assess the applicant 's personality in order to determine the sentence if he were convicted , and that they could support the prosecution 's allegation that the applicant intended to continue to abscond . The prosecution subsequently read out in court certain extracts of interceptions with a view to proving : a ) that the applicant could leave GPE ; b ) that the applicant had started or influenced CARDINAL virulent press campaigns against a magistrate of ORG and against an NORP political party ; c ) that the applicant was collecting information concerning certain politicians and magistrates , with a view to damaging their reputation ; d ) that the applicant continued to show aggressiveness towards the magistrates who were investigating him . ORG compared the applicant 's conduct to that of a “ certified criminal ” ( criminale matricolato ) who attacked all those who had done their job and had tried to do it well . ORG declared that the transcripts of the telephone conversations were at the disposal of ORG and of the defendants .

NORP The transcript of the speech given by Mr PERSON at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE reads as follows :

“ I am submitting these further pleas under LAW . I have already explained why I intend to submit these documents , which consist , firstly , of assessments of LOC 's criminal potential , within the meaning of LAW , with reference in particular to his conduct after the offence was committed , and , secondly , of assessments as to whether the measure affecting his personal freedom should be maintained for the reasons for which it was decided on , and whether it should be extended for other reasons . I shall try to be extremely brief , although what I have to say will take a little time . I have tried to divide the documents submitted according to subject - matter , and have put together the telephone transcripts - the documents include the measures authorising the telephone tapping and the confiscation orders , which were moreover confirmed by the tribunale della libertà [ the court responsible for deciding on the justification for measures restricting personal freedom or property rights ] . The first set consists of telephone transcripts and clearly shows that LOC can move about in GPE . This seems self - evident , yet LOC is someone who , during the proceedings - all the proceedings taking place in GPE - said he had a legitimate reason for not attending and sent doctors ' certificates . First he complained that the trials were not taking place , and now that the trials are taking place he wants them postponed on the grounds that he has a legitimate reason for being unable to attend . It is absolutely clear from these telephone transcripts that LOC is someone who is able to move from the address of the subscription to the telephone line on which he receives calls . Why is this important ? The reason is clear : LOC is such a liar that he continues to lie even before the courts , saying things that are untrue and belied by documentary evidence .

The second point concerns LOC as a danger to the community , in particular his capacity to operate in the current situation , and become involved in the processes whereby public opinion is shaped and in other processes , which I shall discuss . In my opinion , CARDINAL operations are particularly important - CARDINAL press campaigns which were co - ordinated ... or at any rate CARDINAL press campaigns in which LOC clearly played an important role . The first is a recent one : I am referring to the telephone calls on DATE - I apologise for the vulgarity , but I am reporting the speech of others and am not responsible .

PERSON , talking to PERSON , says , ' the son of the hero ' - the reference to Di PERSON is clear . An incomprehensible sentence ' He contributes to the tune of CARDINAL a year , no less , when it all comes out . ' PERSON says , ' Now we take the wraps off the case and then we shoot him in the balls . ' DATE the front page news is : ' PERSON too , has a house in the centre for CARDINAL . '

The second press campaign was co - ordinated directly from GPE . It is the press campaign that was waged in GPE , whose editor is PERSON . What happened ? In a nutshell , LOC sent PERSON a file on the [ NORP ] League , concerning alleged arms dealings by ORG , and PERSON willingly received and published it . What is particularly important is that , in my opinion , the file came from LOC himself : it was found on LOC 's computer or , rather , on the computer in LOC 's office in via PERSON in GPE and , in particular , was referred to in the conversation between Caprettini and LOC , in CARDINAL respects . Firstly , the subscriber - when I say subscriber , I mean Craxi - says , word for word , ' In any case we can do more with them - we can investigate but we can also raise questions . ' What he means is that they can be used to raise questions about ORG , an NORP political party receiving special attention from a fugitive from justice , who agrees with the editor of a DATE to launch a campaign of this type . The second important thing is : ' Of course I publish the article , and then I go to a prosecutor who is a friend of mine and say , “ Hey , look into this affair , will you ? ” - but this is the sort of thing one does nothing about ' . Further evidence that LOC is a liar comes from an article in the GPE , which published the news that LOC had denied being the author of the material sent to LOC . I am producing this evidence to make it clear that when we talk of LOC it is not like shooting at ORG : we are talking of someone who is fully active and has a great capacity to influence the media . In this connection , there is a set of telephone transcripts which show that LOC was in constant contact with journalists in a wide variety of areas .

Let us now move on to the last CARDINAL points which , I believe , deserve a minimum of attention .

There is documentary proof , and proof from the telephone transcripts , that LOC is mounting dossiers in GPE against some political activists . I am referring - with particular regard to the evidence that has been found - to dossiers against PERSON . He is engaging in “ dossierism ” ...

The President : What does the neologism mean ? Compiling information or a dossier ?

ORG : Compiling information in order to attack someone 's reputation . This is an activity that was also to be pursued against judges , including myself , but we shall discuss that later .

I said “ dossierism ” , which consists in compiling information that can damage people 's reputation . This is documented by the telephone transcripts . CARDINAL alarming aspect , in my view , is that it provides further evidence of PERSON criminal potential .

I am talking about compiling dossiers of information designed to damage the reputation of certain eminent people , and I am thinking of GPE , PERSON and PERSON , about whom I shall talk in connection with a specific note that was found in LOC 's office . The dossiers were mounted with a certain PERSON from GPE , who is an old friend of LOC 's - by friend I mean someone with whom he had relations which were , I imagine , of a political nature - to the extent that PERSON appears on a list of presents that LOC gave . She is a leading supporter of ORG , and is known to the judicial authorities for having arranged to put the GPE judicial authorities off the track when they were investigating the massacres , by bribing witnesses . In this connection , I can produce evidence that identifies PERSON : the order from the GPE investigating judge , Dr PERSON if I am not mistaken , which shows that the most recent contact between ORG and PERSON dates back to DATE , and which makes it clear that she attempted to put the investigators off track and bribed witnesses in the course of the proceedings . These are the sort of people PERSON , a fugitive from justice who is the subject of pre - trial detention orders , uses in order to hinder investigations . You will be able to see for yourselves what these documents contain , and I shall not dwell on them . What is significant is another note on ORG also found in LOC 's office . I shall read you out the beginning so you can understand what all this is about . ORG administration has always helped to support the NORP current of ORG ] . PERSON took over from ORG , and the flow of money never stopped . ' On average , PERSON received CARDINAL to CARDINAL a month from GPE . On the occasion of every election or conference , there were extraordinary payments for instance , and so it went on ' , and the note continues with information about the politician .

There are also telephone transcripts of statements by PERSON in which he appears to be talking about GPE ... These are statements that have been filed and can be seen by anyone : it is clear to all why they are important from a criminal point of view .

Then there are documents that show that PERSON has , or at any rate had , relations with important members of the NORP institutions . I am referring in particular to the telephone transcript of DATE , during which the subscriber , LOC , talks to Margherita - she is not identified , who says : ' PERSON told me that he attended a meeting between PERSON and PERSON , and they spent TIME talking about you alone . PERSON came to GPE to see you and told PERSON to tell you that he too would be happy to have you as his guest in GPE . ' Again in connection with the capacity for communication of the accused , PERSON , who I repeat is a fugitive from justice and the subject of an arrest warrant for corruption with aggravating circumstances , there is a letter which the ORG Under - Secretary to the Prime Minister 's office sent to LOC 's secretary on DATE , in which the ORG Under - Secretary to the Prime Minister 's office writes : “ Dear PERSON , what you feared has happened , although both PERSON and GPE promise their good offices and will put things right ' .

Basically , this concerns a recommendation addressed to the ORG Under - Secretary , who hastens to reply , saying ... PERSON is PERSON . And let it be clear that PERSON is nobody in her own right , and yet as PERSON secretary she was still able , on DATE , to make recommendations concerning the allocation of service areas in GPE .

The last point on which I intend to dwell is the constant attacks by PERSON on those who investigated him . The right to defend oneself is sacred and culminates in a fair trial , but when it is exercised by attacking those involved in the proceedings , those who carried out the investigations , it is , in my view , proof of a very highly developed potential for crime .

A note found in LOC 's office - LOC 's own office - you may , if you wish , in this connection hear PERSON , who , I repeat , confirmed this - contained , among other pleasantries , a very precise reference in time in the form of ORG 's release from prison - it is dated after ORG 's release . Among the pleasantries , the note says : ' The PERSON case must become an exemplary case : we must get to the bottom of things because all the conditions are right . The usual logic of hitting CARDINAL person in order to teach CARDINAL others a lesson . ORG must regain its independence and this means it must not be subjected to the requirements of allies and exposed to dangers and uncertainty . There are key targets , particularly FAC [ a group of GPE public prosecutors waging war on corruption ] . We need to have the courage to call for its arrest before they do . We need to denounce the damage caused by the revolt . We must begin by using people as examples and waging war . We need to use parliamentary force in every way possible . This includes calling for enquiries with a lot of publicity and denouncing abuses of authority - by LOC . There is the seizure of the parliamentary question from Maiolo , faxed by ORG parliamentary group ... PERSON , who sent it for information to PERSON DATE with a covering letter which says : ' I would point out , inter alia , that Maiolo has in TIME been collecting more documentation with a view to asking further questions in the near future about the management of ORG . ' There are telephone transcripts in which we read : ' We need to bombard them in the press ' . There are also attacks connected with what was published in PERSON . There is something for everyone - not just for ORG . There are attacks on other colleagues and references to other colleagues . A woman talking to LOC says , ' He 's bewildered too ' and says that the person in question was used by ORG group as a killer ; she says she has heard from PERSON that the person coming down to speak is virtually in the service of PERSON . I will spare you all the rest because you can read it for yourself . I shall just read you one extract , partly because it concerns me and partly because it concerns these proceedings . ' So why does n't someone else come ? ' , with reference to PERSON , who is clearly involved ... he knows the truth of the matter . ' I think GPE stopped him . ' ' I am about ' - here it is the subscriber , PERSON , speaking - ' to denounce this PERSON . Both PERSON 's statements against PERSON and the statements by PERSON come under LAW [ of LAW ] ' .

He is speaking to a certain PERSON , who has not yet been identified , but I hope very soon to identify him , who repeats , ' Yes , but he 's dealing with it . ' LOC replies , ' He has nothing to do with this . ' The person to whom he is speaking says , ' No , of course not . The minister 's dealing with it . '

The President : The public prosecutor is requested to bring the charges without making allusions or taking stands , or making comments of a personal nature .

The public prosecutor : President , the charge is based on the premise that these telephone transcripts show , within the meaning of LAW , behaviour - and this is where the accused , PERSON , has committed an offence - worthy of a certified criminal - it is the behaviour of someone who attacks all those who have simply done their job , because that is what they are paid to do and that is what they have chosen to do , and have sought to do it properly , but he does n't care , he has to attack them and ...

President : We have understood why the public prosecutor has asked for these documents to be produced .

Public Prosecutor : The evidence submitted has been greatly summarised , President , because there is further material and I am at the disposal of defence counsel and the court . Ah , wait TIME - there are all the measures authorising the requests for telephone tapping and seizures ; they are all appended .

The President : Appended to the individual sets of evidence ... these pleas from the public prosecutor ... Let us begin to hear LOC 's defence counsel , who is the person most directly concerned , and then if the others want to intervene ... ”

The applicant 's lawyer requested to be granted access to the decisions authorising the interceptions and to all the documents to which ORG had made reference . He declared that he would have commented on them at a later stage , observing , anyway , that some of the facts imputed to his client could not be described as aggressive behaviours , being rather simple statements of the truth .

The ORG reserved its decision on the prosecution 's request of admittance of evidence until the hearing of DATE . The transcripts of the telephone conversations intercepted on the applicant 's line were made available to the parties immediately after the hearing of CARDINAL DATE . PERSON , the applicant 's lawyer , was provided with the file including all the transcripts and afforded the possibility of making written submissions .

Respectively on CARDINAL and DATE , the CARDINAL applicant 's counsels ( Mr PERSON and PERSON ) were informed that the telephone interceptions had been filed with ORG registry . The applicant 's counsels subsequently objected to the admission of the interceptions as evidence . In particular , they argued that contrary to LAW hereinafter , the “ CPP ” ) ORG had failed to hold a specific sitting before the trial hearing in the presence of both the defence counsels and of the prosecution in order to select those interceptions that were significant and exclude those considered illegal . Further , the prosecution had failed to apply for an extension of the DATE duration of the telephone tapping , so that those interceptions which had been carried out after DATE were illegal and could not be used .

The content and the name of the interlocutors of certain telephone conversations were subsequently published in the press .

NORP In particular , " PERSON " of CARDINAL DATE published an article entitled “ PERSON and conspiracies against PERSON [ one of the magistrates of the clean hands team ] " . It stated that the interceptions made on the applicant 's phone showed that he was preparing a defamatory campaign against some political men with the help of a " lady from GPE " , who was a member of an illegal association of free - masons . Moreover , in CARDINAL of the interceptions PERSON ( an NORP politician ) had told LOC that Mr PERSON ( the current Prime Minister of GPE ) had had a conversation with Mr PERSON about him and that PERSON would have " invited " LOC . In another telephone call , the son of one of the applicant 's lawyers had said that " the Minister " would have commenced proceedings against Mr PERSON .

On DATE , as well as on CARDINAL and DATE , PERSON also published the following extracts from some of the intercepted phone calls .

Conversation on DATE with a certain PERSON :

LOC ( speaking with PERSON ) : “ This PERSON [ ORG ] is another one who wants to make a show of himself , I am going to see whether there are elements to introduce a criminal complaint against him . ”

Conversation on DATE with an unknown woman :

Woman : “ I 'm in a telephone box in GPE . I saw that friend of yours from the ORG . ”

Craxi : “ Why has this big friend of mine failed to say CARDINAL single word ? ”

Woman : “ He leaves the comments to you . He is lost and says that this person had been used by ORG group as a killer . He says that he knew from PERSON that the one who spoke is in practice a servant of PERSON [ a well - known NORP magistrate ] . ”

Craxi : “ Ah , yes ? ”

Woman : “ Concerning the story of the brother . ”

Conversation on DATE with an unidentified friend :

Craxi : “ They should go and see . It should be established whether a magistrate can buy a ORG at a very favorable price . DATE he borrow money from a friend in order to pay his gambling debts ? So all this is legitimate , it can be done . Let 's put it in the law : magistrates may borrow money without paying legal interests . ”

Conversation on DATE with an unknown man :

man : “ DATE I will provide you with all the things you asked me on ORG [ a press agency ] , the most important thing [ is ] that , at least until DATE , I do not know if now he has been revoked , ORG was a counsellor of its biggest company . ”

Craxi : “ Ah , ah , ah , very well , give me all the data , please . ”

man : “ Counsellor of its biggest company , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL members of the directing body was ORG , so ... ”

Craxi : “ Super , then I would like to have the material concerning that other thing ... ”

Conversation on DATE with Mr PERSON [ a journalist ] :

Craxi : “ ... There are some pillars in GPE [ term used by the press to design the corruption system disclosed by the clean hands inquiry ] that stayed outside , they should be all those who stayed inside , then we can find the solution , but no kidding , I am not getting upset because of the apartment of GPE [ an NORP politician who had subsequently been the Prime Minister of GPE ] ... ”

PERSON : “ Sorry , the phone fell while I was taking the book , pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL , where it speaks about PERSON ... ”

Craxi : “ There is a tale , not really about that thing which will make a little scandal , but it will be a regular contract on which it was not possible to lay ... lies are others and this one PERSON is another GPE , close to GPE , fuck him . ORG in GPE opened an inquiry for calumny , but DATE of reckoning will come , son of ... ”

Conversation on DATE with a certain PERSON :

Craxi : “ What is going on with the inquiry of PERSON ? Now it does not concern PERSON , but myself ? ”

PERSON : “ These are saying that they brought papers against you . ”

Craxi : “ What papers ? ”

PERSON : “ The papers concerning the search . ”

Craxi : “ The papers concerning the search have nothing to do with PERSON . ”

Conversation on DATE with lawyer PERSON :

Guiso : “ PERSON is in Cernobbio . Today Il corriere della sera says that he is nobody , and he had been recommended - and this is very important - by an agent of the branch of the NORP police investigating on financial matters . He is substantially accompanied by him , please consider that he had been DATE in GPE and appears in Cernobbio , he should speak TIME on the subject “ foreign politic , ethic and finance . ”

Craxi : “ It 's crazy , but it is the subject of ORG . ”

Guiso : “ [ This ] shows that he was linked to GPE , not at all the uncertain future he had declared when he abandoned his post . Then , a journalist gave me a book with plenty of information . I can not send it to you by fax as the characters are very small . ”

Craxi : “ Send it to me to that address by ORG . To that address you know . ”

Conversation on DATE with a journalist of “ GPE ” :

Journalist : “ Did you hear about the new NORP politicians ? ”

Craxi : “ Who are they ? ”

Journalist : “ PERSON . ”

Craxi : “ A little adventurous trafficker ( avventuriero trafficante ) . ”

Conversation on DATE on LOC 's line in GPE . Mrs. PERSON speaks with a certain PERSON :

PERSON : “ I have interesting news to give him . ”

PERSON : “ He says you can send a fax . ”

PERSON : “ I will send it DATE with some references to GPE . ”

PERSON : “ Let 's use a code , a slightly modified code , we know of what kind of persons we are speaking about . ”

PERSON : “ I will send some telephone numbers ... I had been told that the mother is a very worldly - minded person . ”

PERSON : “ Newly rich , all this is useful for us , maybe also apartments ... ”

Conversation on DATE with a certain PERSON :

Craxi : “ The problem was to build up the physiognomy of the personage ... In sum , this is the clue , it seems he had made a number of things on which he was wrong . ”

PERSON : “ It is an enormous thing , there are CARDINAL documents per day . ”

Craxi : “ The trials he made , I know about something , we should look at them , people say that the tribunal shut the door in his face , they speak about the preparation of some books by certain friends , ask to send them the list of the members of the publishing house . ”

Conversation on DATE with Mr PERSON , a journalist :

Craxi : “ You should speak with somebody who will come and speak to me . The problem ... is to have the hands free and to have information . ”

PERSON : “ We have some . ”

Craxi : “ What is a newspaper like this doing , scandal and satire , is n't it ? ”

PERSON : “ We were the sole newspaper is GPE which published documents on red gladio [ a secret organization that ORG was suspected to have built in order to achieve its aims during the cold war ] ... judges have discontinued the proceedings on this matter . ”

Craxi : “ It is not the only matter on which they discontinued proceedings , there is a systematic tendency to discontinue proceedings concerning ORG . ”

PERSON : “ Do you know what we have discovered ? That apart from ORG , also the gangster PERSON was a member of gladio and had been trained abroad ... also the CARDINAL of the gold of PERSON . ”

Craxi : “ There are many things . They believe they have solved the problem with the scapegoat , they are under an illusion , they should have killed me , but as they did not succeed in this ... they tried twice , once the NORP intelligence , once the LANGUAGE one . ”

PERSON : “ Mr. President , be careful , I know that here in GPE they want to organize [ something ] , to come [ over there ] and take you , it seems they are offering MONEY , which is CARDINAL MONEY ] per person , within the intelligence , in order to take you and to bring you elsewhere . ”

Craxi : “ All right , all right , try to do so . ”

PERSON : “ I am telling you this because a person I trust during his last meeting with me ... I know that a group ORG has been constituted , kept in the shade of a free - masons organisation constituted by CARDINAL magistrates , and the head of this group would be PERSON [ the President of GPE at the relevant time ] . ”

Craxi : “ I heard about this thing , but I do not believe it , I am not convinced . ”

Conversation on DATE with an unidentified journalist :

journalist : “ Will Salamone come [ to see you in GPE ] ? ”

Craxi : “ I have no idea . I am here , everybody knows where I can be found . ”

Conversation on DATE with an unknown journalist :

Journalist : “ I will state that you said : “ I have friends not only in the NORP world and I think that in a NORP capital a center such as the LOC center will be built , [ and this center ] will investigate the judicial clans and all those who in DATE had acted unfairly against me and against many other people . ”

Craxi : “ No , that is not good . First of all it is not only against me , it is not the judicial clans , but all the clans including the judicial ones ... [ a center which ] looks after and will look for the truth ... So much truth which still has to come out . ”

Journalist : “ Then I ask you the thing on PERSON and then you will answer “ I 'm writing a book which will be entitled “ GPE an NORP miracle . ”

Craxi : “ No , I want to write , I want to write a little book , not a book ... It 's too important . ”

Conversation on DATE with Mr PERSON , a journalist :

PERSON : “ Now I 'm working for “ Il tempo ” , and the television show of ORG has started again ... I saw that thing about ORG [ the NORP electric energy producing company ] . ”

Craxi : “ This story on DATE 's “ Il giornale ” is the end of the world , do you know whom the political personality I am referring to is ? ”

PERSON : “ No , frankly not . ”

Craxi : “ It 's PERSON , there is a statement [ made by ] PERSON [ a director of ORG who was accused of corruption and made statements calling into question the criminal liability of LOC and other politicians ] . ”

PERSON : “ ... about which you speak in your books . ”

Craxi : “ I was n't aware , there is a statement [ made by ] PERSON exposing DATE , but there is a continuity in the criminal offence , he took part in a meeting in PERSON or ORG in which were present GPE , the regional secretary of ORG and others , where he , as a representative of ORG ... discussed the contracts for public works in GPE . ”

PERSON “ What about this statement ? ”

Craxi : “ I have it , I will forward it to you . ”

PERSON : “ Maybe , I will call you DATE . ”

Craxi : “ Now a number of things will come out on that young man . ”

PERSON : “ They are getting a different turn ... all the things about GPE . ”

Craxi : “ Those things from GPE are the less [ important ] , there are other things ... I would like to be personally informed . I would like to have a fax number where I can send things to you . ”

Conversation on DATE with a certain PERSON :

PERSON : “ The fax is broken , I would have liked to send you some extracts from DATE 's and DATE 's newspapers concerning that little dog named PERSON [ probably , the former GPE magistrate GPE ] and his son . Did you see them ? ”

Craxi : “ Yes , yes , thanks . ”

Conversation on DATE with ORG , the applicant 's son :

PERSON : “ The thing will come out DATE . ”

Craxi : “ Not the next one . ”

PERSON : “ Not DATE , also because DATE ] there is the ORG case . It will come out DATE , it 's CARDINAL pages and they will anticipate it . ”

Craxi : “ all right , it will be DATE and they will be afraid . ”

Conversation on DATE with PERSON , a journalist :

PERSON ( speaking with LOC ) : “ The thing has already been paged up . I will forward it to you in advance ... we will put a big emphasis on it , we already have an agreement with Il corriere della sera in the sense that they will make big titles , do n't worry because it is very well managed , you will see , it will have a big impact . ”

Conversation on DATE with Mrs. PERSON :

PERSON : “ Apart from these documents , I have a channel to acquire more detailed information , but I need that you organize an appointment . ”

Craxi : “ They should be attacked frontally , without fear , to PERSON they are doing ... This PERSON is behaving like a pure mafioso , an arrogance from the power . ”

PERSON : “ There is no other alternative but screaming it in their face , we will do it , we will do it . Here everything is all right except for that little asshole of PERSON [ an NORP politician ] . ”

Conversation on DATE with a certain PERSON [ probably PERSON PERSON , the son of one of the lawyers officially representing LOC in the PERSON trial . Mr PERSON , who is also a lawyer , acted as his father 's substitute during some hearings ] :

PERSON : “ Yes , he will think about it . ”

Craxi : “ He has nothing to do with this . ”

PERSON : “ No , sure he has , the ministry will think about this . ”

Craxi : “ Because it 's CARDINAL [ Article of the Criminal Code punishing the attempt to impede the functioning of the LAW organs ] . ”

PERSON : “ This is something up to him . ”

Craxi : “ To introduce a claim calmly is CARDINAL thing , but one can not make all the comments and the political polemics , the speculation made by PERSON is a defamatory one . ”

PERSON : “ But now the serious point is to give him a hand . It is essential to break them on this GPE thing which is the only one they are afraid of , so as he has a number of suspicions , he needs it as he needs bread . ”

Craxi : “ I am completely unaware of that story . ”

PERSON : “ I have a lot of material . ”

Craxi : “ I will immediately deal with this matter , DATE I will send faxes and then I will keep [ you ] informed . ”

PERSON ; “ Then , it is important to ask for the availability of the ORG . ”

Craxi : “ Is it enough that it arrives immediately , then you will call when it leaves . ”

PERSON : “ We are doing everything very quickly , then I will go directly to GPE . In any case this one with whom we are working together can be trusted , then the serious thing is that he is using the same elements of GPE , therefore it would be a big mess if it comes out that with the same elements GPE failed to proceed , there are many ideas to be used . ”

Conversation on an unspecified date with a certain Mr. PERSON :

Craxi : “ That one is an idiot , a first - class idiot . ”

PERSON : “ He was replaced by ... ”

Craxi : “ He was replaced because he was incompetent . ”

PERSON : “ He was replaced by PERSON . ”

Craxi : “ He was incompetent . ”

PERSON : “ He tried to suggest that his replacement ... ”

Craxi : “ Of course not ... ”

PERSON : “ They presented themselves as supporters of An [ NORP nazionale , an NORP political party ] . ”

Craxi : “ Precisely ... but that one is an idiot , an unpretentious personage , I do not know how he could have arrived there . ”

PERSON also reported that in another conversation with an unknown person , LOC had showed his appreciation for a recital with PERSON transmitted by the NORP television ; when he had learned that his friend had not seen it , he had said : “ Phone Rossella [ the director of a news bulletin ] and make them send the cassette to you . ”

“ LOC ” of DATE published an article entitled “ The attempts to create false evidence by the friend of the head of PCARDINAL [ an illegal free masons association ] ” . It made reference to a telephone conversation that the applicant had had on DATE with PERSON , in which the discussion concerned “ documents made ad hoc ” in order to be sent to an editorial company . The article reported the links allegedly existing between PERSON and Mr PERSON , head of the PCARDINAL .

“ GPE ” of DATE published an article entitled “ We will ask for the arrest of the [ clean hands ] Pool ” . As far as it concerned the telephone interceptions , the article indicated the names of some journalists who had spoken with the applicant on the phone , and the content of the telephone conversation with PERSON reported by PERSON . GPE moreover reported the content of a phone call that the applicant had had with Mr PERSON , his “ speaker in GPE ” , on DATE . The conversation at issue was interpreted as an attempt to attack Mr PERSON in relation to an apartment rented to his son . Its content was the following .

Iosi : “ The son of the hero contributes DATE for MONEY [ approximately CARDINAL MONEY ] . ”

Craxi : “ So much ... When will this thing come out ? ”

Iosi : “ Now we will make the case grow and then we will shoot them right in the balls [ NORP expression which means to attack someone hardly ] , MONEY [ approximately CARDINAL euros ] in spite of the rent rates and formally in his own name only in order to put his son in it . ”

GPE also reported the content of some telephone conversations the applicant had had with PERSON , with a certain PERSON , with Mr PERSON ( the director of an NORP newspaper ) , with PERSON and Mr PERSON ( CARDINAL journalists ) , and with a certain PERSON . Their content is the following .

Conversation on DATE :

Craxi : “ PERSON , in this moment you are not helping me . ”

Mentana : “ You mean , honouring the truth . ”

Craxi : “ By reporting the things I am saying , for GPE sake , nothing more ... The boys from ORG [ a political organisation ] did something TIME . ”

Mentana : “ I 'm not aware of this . ”

Craxi : “ Think about it , nobody was there , there were no televisions , now you should report this news , report this news at least , they were CARDINAL , they are good , I have sent a memorial of historical nature , something about the ORG [ an NORP patriot ] ... if you continue , you will see the little surprise . ”

Conversation on DATE :

Craxi : “ I should come as I came many times in GPE with moustaches : in fact I was coming with a wig and false moustaches ... Idiots . ”

PERSON : “ This is the moment to do something about the procedural guaranties , about the magistrates , about the pentiti , PERSON , PERSON [ persons accused by pentiti in mafia trials ] , if you are not taking advantage from these occasions , there would be nothing you could do . ”

Craxi : “ Let 's say the truth , there are some gangs organising a push - off , real gangs . ”

PERSON : “ PERSON [ nick - name of LOC ] , there are idiots , inefficient persons , cowards . ”

Craxi : “ no , no , they reached an agreement , and lack of courage is inside the information , as all this would n't happen if there were n't a number of cowards in the newspapers and the televisions . ”

PERSON : “ My director is a person who believes in nothing , therefore he is keen on his position and there is somebody protecting him and his friends [ to continue ] believing in nothing . ”

Conversation on DATE :

Caprettini : “ I believe , the funny thing is the following , you know what I am going to do , I will of course publish this thing , then I will address myself to a magistrate friend and then I 'll tell him : let 's investigate on this matter , so we 'll keep the problem alive . ”

Conversation on DATE :

LOC ( speaking with PERSON ) : “ I ca n't understand what is going on in GPE , if we are going to the elections immediately or not ; in the affirmative , there is nothing to do ; in the negative , in DATE time we will sort out a socialist list , we will put a nice pink carnation [ the symbol of the FAC ] on it . I will make the socialist list being made , no kidding . This situation can not be accepted anymore . ”

Conversation on DATE :

PERSON : “ I had information about this , it is hearsay , the father of PERSON in DATE was the Secretary of the LOC [ University fascist group ] of GPE , it is for sure . ”

Craxi : “ I would like to have a more precise .. ”

PERSON : “ I can provide you with the whole story , because after having caused the death of CARDINAL people , he told it to a journalist . ”

Craxi : “ And then we will deal also with the betrayer . ”

Conversation on DATE :

Craxi : “ Send me a text . ”

PERSON : “ it is very important , I will send it to you and you will forward it to ORG , Mr GPE ... Now the important point is to give them a hand , to attack them on this GPE thing which is the only one they fear ... this person who is working with us is somebody I trust , then the serious thing is that he is using the same elements of GPE , which will prove that with the same elements GPE failed to proceed . ”

GPE also reported the following telephone conversation current on DATE between PERSON , the applicant 's wife , and PERSON PERSON , the wife of the actual Prime Minister of GPE .

PERSON : “ PERSON , how are you ? ”

PERSON : “ And how do you do , everything all right ? ”

PERSON : “ Everything all right , we arrived in GPE DATE . The trip was extremely tiring ... ”

GPE noted that “ the day on which PERSON made her polite phone call to her friend , the husband of the latter had already been declared latitante [ which means deliberately evading justice ] by ORG ” .

Il corriere della sera of DATE published the content of a telephone conversation that the applicant had with a certain PERSON , afterwards identified as Mr PERSON . The text is the following .

PERSON : “ We should say we are ready to be heard . Because this is an interesting situation . I had a number of contacts with this magistrate . ”

Craxi : “ All right . In the meanwhile I do not even know what these things are . ”

PERSON : “ It 's obvious , but he knows that it is not absolutely irrelevant . ”

Craxi : “ In view of a speech of a general nature . ”

PERSON : “ Correct . He knows that [ this ] has nothing to do with that other story ; it 's only stuff he inserted in order to come and hear you . ”

Craxi : “ Send me a text . ”

PERSON : “ It 's very important . I 'll send it and you will forward it to Mr GPE , ORG attached to ORG . Do you have that note ? ”

Craxi : “ I did not even read it . ”

PERSON : “ Look at it , because it is a serious thing . There wo n't be any problem with GPE . ”

Craxi : “ Here they are a little bit upset with GPE , in general . I will intervene . ”

PERSON : “ In this way , we will create a great problem for them , as this [ person ] told me very interesting things . For instance , he has consulted PERSON [ a branch of the NORP police ] , and you are in the list of latitanti . So a big contrast will be created , which would help us a lot . ”

Craxi : “ Why ? ”

PERSON : “ Because then we will be able to prove that the order declaring you latitante was arbitrary . So , if we can bring him [ seeing you ] it would be difficult for them to justify the fact that you are evading justice . ”

Craxi : “ So the other one is not going to come ? ”

PERSON : “ He has been blocked in GPE . ”

Craxi : “ I do not believe it . ”

PERSON : “ Yes , I know it for sure , he told me . This one , on the contrary , is ready to do seas and mountains [ NORP expression which means everything is necessary in order to achieve one 's aims ] . ”

PERSON : “ Then at the Ministry there is an agreement , it would be ... ”

On DATE Il corriere della sera published an interview with Mr PERSON , who explained that the telephone call at issue did not concern a “ conspiracy ” organised by the applicant , and a letter of PERSON , challenging the opportunity of putting in the file the conversation she had had with the applicant 's wife . Articles appeared in ORG della sera and in other newspapers concerning interviews and declarations made by Mr GPE , ORG attached to ORG , who criticised the release into the public domain of the telephone interceptions and declared that he had never followed irregular procedures in order to serve the interests of the applicant . The latter was at freedom to believe that he could have taken advantage from the legitimate and impartial investigations that Mr GPE was making . Other declarations made by the persons who spoke with the applicant on the phone were published by the press , as well as the replies of the applicant to the speech made by Mr PERSON on DATE . The applicant stated , in particular , that ORG at issue was a “ certified liar ” ( bugiardo matricolato ) and had used a “ NORP ” language .

In DATE , GPE , PERSON and ORG della sera published articles which referred to the above mentioned telephone conversations and to the speech made by PERSON at the hearing of DATE . They included attempts to interpret the precise meaning of the conversations . Some of the newspapers commented that the transcripts of the telephone conversations showed , together with other elements , that the applicant was trying to use his influence and his relationships to organise a defamatory campaign against his political adversaries and against the magistrates who were investigating on him . It was moreover discussed in the press whether the applicant had the power to influence the political line of the party ORG , with some members of which he had , apparently , kept close contacts . GPE of DATE published an article written on DATE by the applicant himself and containing considerations of a political nature .

Mr Paolo Ielo granted the press a number of interviews on the matter ; he declared he regretted having compared the applicant to a “ certified criminal ” , but that it was his duty to control the telephone conversations of a person who was deliberately evading a court order . Even if the telephone interceptions did not disclose any criminally relevant behaviour , they should be taken into account in order to assess the applicant 's personality and to fix the penalty that ORG could have demanded at the outset of the court proceedings .

At the hearing of DATE ORG asked the parties to clarify who had disclosed to the press the content of the telephone interceptions before the competent judicial authority had had the opportunity of pronouncing itself on their admissibility . Mr PERSON pointed out that immediately after the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the file containing all the telephone interceptions had been forwarded to PERSON , the applicant 's lawyer ; the file had been returned to ORG only the following DATE , when part of the transcripts had already been released into the public domain . Mr PERSON concluded that ORG could not be held responsible for the divulging of these acts . The representative of the civil party declared that he had nothing to say on this point : he had not copied the transcripts and he had not given them to third persons . Mr Guiso confirmed the version given by Mr PERSON . He indicated that he had copied the file which had been forwarded to him , but that this was done in a particularly secret manner , in order to protect the applicant 's interests and to avoid any divulging which could be prejudicial for him . Some journalists had requested to be granted access to the transcripts , but Mr PERSON had categorically refused . Mr Giuso underlined that , as prescribed by the law , the file with the transcripts had been made available to all the parties of the trial , and not only to the applicant 's defence lawyers . Mr PERSON concluded that the divulging of the transcripts was clearly due to the action of third persons . He was not interested in that , the only point he wanted to raise being why the telephone interceptions had been presented at the public hearing . The lawyers of the other accused persons declared that they were not responsible for the disclosure .

In an order of DATE , ORG found that contrary to the applicant 's allegations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the failure to hold a specific hearing prior to the trial in order to select the intercepted telephone conversations did not amount to a violation of the relevant provisions of NORP law . ORG first observed that according to LAW case law , failure to respect the formalities indicated in LAW and CARDINAL of the CPP did not prevent the use of the interceptions . It moreover noted that according to LAW , the said LAW , which concerned wire - tapings made during the preliminary investigations , could apply to the trial phase only “ if possible ” . In the present case , the selection of the material had been made in the presence of the parties and in its “ natural ” place , which was the trial hearing . ORG however decided not to make use of the information yielded by the telephone interceptions made DATE and DATE , in that they were relevant but not “ absolutely necessary ” within the meaning of LAW ORG in order to assess the applicant 's personality . ORG further held that the interceptions made after DATE could not be used as evidence , as no application had been made by the prosecutor for an extension of the duration of interception , nor could such authorisation be considered as having been implicitly granted for as long as the applicant would be absconding .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG convicted the applicant to a penalty of DATE and DATE imprisonment and to a fine of MONEY ( MONEY ) . This sentence was confirmed on appeal on DATE . However , the appeal judgment was quashed by ORG and the case was re - heard by ORG , which , on DATE , reduced the penalty imposed on the applicant to DATE and DATE imprisonment . This decision became final on DATE .

The applicant complained about the unfairness of the PERSON criminal proceedings in the ambit of application no CARDINAL/CARDINAL , introduced on DATE . In a decision of DATE , the ORG declared this application inadmissible .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the CPP allows ORG to accomplish , even after the committal for trial , further investigation acts ( attività integrativa di indagine ) with a view to presenting requests to the trial judge . All the documents concerning these acts are immediately filed with ORG registry . Counsels for the defendants and for the civil party are granted access to the acts at issue and may obtain a copy of them .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG states that ORG should file in its registry the transcripts of any telephone conversation which has been wire - tapped . Counsels for the defendants and for the civil party are granted access to these transcripts and may obtain a copy of them .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG prohibits the partial or total publication of any act or document to which the secrecy rule applies . According to LAW ORG , this rule of secrecy covers all the acts made by ORG or the police during the investigations , but ceases to apply at the end of the preliminary investigations . Once the trial has commenced , the prohibition to publish covers all the acts included in ORG file ( fascicolo del pubblico ministero ) until the delivery of the appeal judgment ( see LAW ORG ) . The acts not covered by the secrecy rule can always be published ( see LAW ORG ) .

According to LAW , the representatives of the parties are informed that , within a determined time - limit , they may examine the transcripts of the interceptions and hear their content . Once this time - limit has expired , the judge should order the inclusion into the file of all the conversations which are not manifestly irrelevant . He should proceed , even ex officio , to the exclusion ( stralcio ) of the material whose use is prohibited . ORG and the defence lawyers have the right to take part to the exclusion procedure and are informed about it CARDINAL in advance ( Il pubblico ministero e i difensori hanno diritto di partecipare allo stralcio e sono avvisati almeno ventiquattro ore prima ) .

According to LAW , the results of the telephone interceptions can not be used if they have been done in cases non permitted by law or if the prescriptions of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL § § CARDINAL have not been respected .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the CPP stipulates that in order to facilitate the researches of a person who is deliberately evading the court 's jurisdiction , the Public prosecutor or the judge may order telephone interceptions . In this case , the provisions of Article CARDINAL should apply “ if possible ” ( ove possibile ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant sued a limited company before the Bratislava II ORG . He claimed royalties for a furniture line which he had designed .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request that a second company should be joined to the proceedings as a defendant . On DATE ORG in GPE upheld that decision .

As the first defendant was declared insolvent , the applicant withdrew his claim against it on DATE . That company was subsequently deleted from the companies register .

On DATE the Bratislava II ORG decided to transfer the case to ORG in PERSON . On DATE ORG decided that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Bratislava II ORG .

DATE and DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings . The defendant ’s representative failed to appear on QUANTITY occasions .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment . The court of appeal held that the applicant was entitled to remuneration for the design in question . Further evidence was to be taken with a view to determining the amount .

DATE and DATE the file was examined by ORG .

On DATE the case was assigned to a different judge of ORG .

On DATE , ORG appointed an expert . As the expert stated that he was not competent in the area concerned , a different expert was appointed on DATE . On account of the latter ’s health problems , a third expert was appointed on DATE . The third expert informed ORG that he was not qualified to determine remuneration for artistic design , and for this reason a fourth expert was appointed on DATE . That expert informed the court that she was not authorised to prepare an opinion on the point in issue . On DATE the Bratislava II ORG appointed a fifth expert with a view to having determined the remuneration due to the applicant . On DATE that expert replied that he was not entitled to give an opinion on the point in issue . On DATE the court asked the second expert , who had earlier stated that he was suffering from health problems , whether he could submit an opinion . He replied in the negative .

On DATE the judge made a note in the file indicating that it had been impossible to find an expert in intellectual property who was qualified to determine royalties for the design of office furniture .

On DATE ORG asked CARDINAL companies for information on royalties paid to furniture designers . It repeated the request on DATE .

In DATE the court sent a similar request to ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG . In DATE and DATE the court urged ORG to submit the information .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . The applicant was asked to submit documentary evidence concerning the use by the defendant of the furniture line designed by him . The applicant submitted the evidence on DATE .

On DATE ORG appointed an expert in household equipment and furniture and asked him to submit an opinion within DATE . That expert has been registered in the list of experts , translators and interpreters of ORG since DATE . He submitted the opinion on DATE . On DATE ORG decided on the expert ’s fees .

The proceedings are pending .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the Bratislava II ORG and ORG had violated his right under LAW to a hearing within a reasonable time .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had violated the applicant ’s right in issue . The case was of a certain complexity in that expert evidence was required . The applicant had not contributed by his conduct to the length of the proceedings . The defendant had failed to appear at CARDINAL hearings , which had resulted in the proceedings being prolonged . ORG had not proceeded with the case in a smooth and efficient manner , as a result of which the applicant ’s claim had not yet been determined .

ORG ordered ORG to proceed with the case without further delay and awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas ( the equivalent of MONEY at that time ) in just satisfaction . It also ordered ORG to reimburse the applicant ’s costs .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was unrepresented before the ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE , the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits . On DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . On DATE the applicant appealed . On DATE the decision was upheld . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-c;No violation of Art. 10;Preliminary objection rejected (ratione temporis);Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON , a NORP citizen born in DATE , is a former mayor of ORG , where he currently lives .

Since DATE , serious disturbances have raged in the south - east of GPE between the security forces and the members of the ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) . This confrontation has so far , according to the ORG , claimed the lives of CARDINAL civilians and CARDINAL members of the security forces .

At the time of the ORG ’s consideration of the case , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL provinces of south - east GPE had since DATE been subjected to emergency rule .

NORP In DATE , while serving several sentences in GPE military prison , the applicant made the following remarks in an interview with journalists :

“ I support the ORG national liberation movement ; on the other hand , I am not in favour of massacres . Anyone can make mistakes , and the ORG kill women and children by mistake … ”

“ ... PKK'nın ulusal kurtuluş hareketini destekliyorum . PERSON değiliz , yanlış şeyler her yerde olur . Kadın ve çocukları yanlışlıkla öldürüyorlar … ”

That statement was published in the national DATE newspaper DATE on DATE .

On DATE the “ press offences ” department of the GPE public prosecutor ’s office began a preliminary investigation in respect of the applicant among others , on the ground that he had “ defended an act punishable by law as a serious crime ” , an offence under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

On CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor ’s office ruled that there was no case to answer in respect of the journalists and that it had no jurisdiction ratione loci to deal with Mr PERSON ’s case . It sent the file to the ORG public prosecutor .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE the ORG public prosecutor ruled that he had no jurisdiction , on the ground that the offence committed by the applicant was governed by Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL–CARDINAL of LAW ( a provision which makes it an offence to disseminate propaganda that is racist or calculated to weaken national sentiment ) . He forwarded the file to the public prosecutor at ORG .

On DATE the latter likewise ruled that he had no jurisdiction , on the ground that when the applicant had made his statement to the journalists he was in custody in a military prison and therefore had military status in law . He forwarded the file to the ORG military prosecutor ’s office .

By means of an indictment dated CARDINAL DATE , the ORG military prosecutor ’s office instituted proceedings in ORG against Mr PERSON ( among others ) under LAW of LAW . The applicant was charged with supporting the activities of an armed organisation , the ORG , whose aim was to break up GPE ’s national territory .

At a hearing before ORG on DATE the applicant argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear his case and refused to put forward a defence on the merits .

At a hearing on DATE counsel for PERSON asked ORG to rule that it had no jurisdiction as the offence with which his client was charged was not a military one and a military prison could not be regarded as military LOC . The court dismissed that application on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from ORG military prison to LOC civilian prison .

ORG , acting under powers delegated to it by ORG , summoned the applicant to submit his defence . The applicant , who was on hunger strike , did not appear at the hearing on DATE . He did appear at one held on DATE but refused to address the court , as he considered that it had no jurisdiction to try him .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that it had no jurisdiction in the case and sent the file to ORG .

On DATE Mr PERSON was transferred to the high - security civilian prison at GPE .

At a hearing held on DATE by ORG , acting under powers delegated by ORG , the applicant refused to speak NORP and said in NORP that he wished to defend himself in his mother tongue . ORG pointed out to him that , if he persisted in his refusal to defend himself , he would be deemed to have waived his right to do so . Since Mr PERSON continued to speak in NORP , the court noted in the record of the hearing that he had not put forward a defence .

The proceedings then continued before ORG , where the applicant was represented by his lawyers .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for having “ defended an act punishable by law as a serious crime ” and “ endangering public safety ” . In accordance with LAW DATE , he would have to serve CARDINAL of the sentence ( DATE and DATE ) in custody and CARDINAL on parole .

ORG held that the ORG qualified as an “ armed organisation ” under LAW of LAW , that its aim was to bring about the secession of part of GPE ’s territory and that it committed acts of violence such as murder , kidnapping and armed robbery . The court also held that PERSON PERSON ’s statement to the journalists , the exact terms of which had been established during the judicial investigation , amounted to an offence under LAW of LAW .

The applicant appealed on points of law on DATE . In a judgment of DATE , served on the applicant ’s representative on CARDINAL DATE , ORG upheld ORG judgment .

In the meantime , on DATE , Mr PERSON , who had just served the sentences imposed on him earlier , had been released .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested the applicant to report to ORG in order to serve his latest sentence CARDINAL of the prison term , for the remainder of which he would be on parole .

The relevant provisions of LAW at the material time provided :

Article CARDINAL

“ It shall be an offence punishable by DATE imprisonment to form an armed gang or organisation or to assume control or special responsibility within such a gang or organisation with the intention of committing any of the offences referred to in Articles CARDINAL ...

It shall be an offence punishable by DATE imprisonment to belong to such an organisation . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ It shall be an offence , punishable by CARDINAL months’ to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a ‘ ORG [ ağır ] fine of MONEY publicly to praise or defend an act punishable by law as a serious crime or to urge the people to disobey the law .

It shall be an offence , punishable by DATE to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and by a heavy fine of MONEY , publicly to incite hatred or hostility between the different classes in society , thereby creating discrimination based on membership of a social class , race , religion , sect or region . Where such incitement endangers public safety , the sentence shall be increased by CARDINAL to CARDINAL .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the material time provided :

“ A person in custody in a prison situated outside the jurisdiction of the court which is to try him may be examined by other courts . ”

On DATE the NORP Minister for ORG deposited with the Secretary General of ORG the following declaration under LAW of the Convention :

“ On behalf of ORG and acting in accordance with LAW of ORG , I hereby declare as follows :

The Government of the Republic of Turkey acting in accordance with LAW of ORG , hereby recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement the jurisdiction of ORG in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the LAW which relate to the exercise of jurisdiction within the meaning of LAW , performed within the boundaries of the national territory of GPE , and provided further that such matters have previously been examined by the Commission within the power conferred upon it by GPE .

This Declaration is made on condition of reciprocity , including reciprocity of obligations assumed under LAW . It is valid for DATE as from the date of its deposit and extends to matters raised in respect of facts , including judgments which are based on such facts which have occurred subsequent to the date of deposit of the present Declaration . ”

That declaration was renewed on DATE for DATE and again on DATE , in slightly different terms , for DATE .