(1993) 15 E.H.R.R. CD112

*112

DeBono v. Malta

App. No. 20608/92

Before the European Commission of Human Rights

Eur Comm HR

(Fair hearing: declaration of guilt in criminal proceedings to which not a

party, inability to defend oneself; Effective remedy)

In a judgment in criminal proceedings against another, the judge implied that the applicant had committed an offence in such a way that he could be identified. The reference was widely reported, but the applicant was never arrested or charged. The applicant sued the newspapers for libel, but they pleaded that they were merely reporting court proceedings, a privileged activity. He then filed an application to the Civil Court, claiming that he had a right to protect his reputation which the judge had violated, but the court held that his claim was inadmissible as a judge had absolute privilege for anything said or done ex officio. His appeal to the Constitutional Court was dismissed. He complained to the Commission of violations of Article 6(1), (2) and (3)(c) and (d), in that he had been found guilty of an offence in criminal proceedings to which he was not a party and had thus been prevented from defending himself or examining witnesses. He also complained of the lack of a remedy under Article 13.

The Law

The Commission has examined the question of the date of introduction of the present application for the purposes of calculating the running of the six- month period under Article 26 of the Convention .

In accordance with its established practice, the Commission considers the date of the introduction of an application to be the date of the first letter indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the complaint. However, where a substantial interval follows before an applicant submits further information as to his proposed application, the Commission examines the particular circumstances of the case in order to decide what date shall be regarded as the date of introduction with a view to calculating the running of the six-month period set out in Article 26 of the Convention. [FN1]

FN1 See, e.g. App. No. 4429/70, 37 Coll. 109.

The Commission has regard in this context to the purpose of the six-month rule which is to promote security of the law, to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time and to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under uncertainty for a prolonged period of time.

The Commission's case law also establishes that it would be contrary to the spirit and the aim of the six-month rule set out in Article 26 if, by any initial communication, an application could set into motion the proceedings under the Convention and then remain inactive for an unexplained and unlimited length of time. [FN2] The Commission has therefore rejected applications where an applicant submitted an application more than six months after the date of the final decision when there were no special circumstances suspending the running of this period. It would be inconsistent with the aim and purpose of the six-month rule to deviate from this rule in a situation where an application has been introduced under Article 25 of the Convention within six months from the final decision, or act complained of, but thereafter not pursued.

FN2 See, e.g. App. No. 10626/83, 42 D. & R. 205.

In the present case the Commission recalls that over two years had passed before the applicant resumed correspondence with the Commission in spite of the Secretariat's request for copies of the relevant court decisions. The applicant has given no explanation for this delay.

In light of these circumstances, notwithstanding the applicant's initial communication of 2 May 1990, the Commission considers the date of introduction of the application to be 3 August 1992. Since the final decision concerning the applicant's complaints was the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 19 February 1990, it follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27(3) of the Convention.

Held, Article 25; complaint inadmissible.