(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The applicant, Antonio Novelli, is an Italian national . He was born on 10 April 1946 at Sezze Latina . In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Antonio Acquaroli, of the Rome Bar . The applicant was an employee of the Rome Airports Company . On 21 September 1982, while unloading baggage, he was arrested, with 3other persons, allegedly in the act of committing an offence .On30September1982theappl)cantappearedintheRomeDistrictCourtunde r the procedure for persons arrested in the act of committing an offence . A new hearing was set down for 9 October 1982 . At the conclusion of this hearing the Court remitted the file to the investigating judge so that the case could be dealt with under the ordinary procedure . The applicant was released provisonally on 4 October 1982 . Two hearings were held in this case on 1 and 18 October 1983 . On 18 October the Court ordered the applicant's acquittal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence and its judgment was filed at the registry on 27 October 1983 . The applicant and the public prosecutor appealed against this decision, which was however upheld by the Court of Appeal in a judgment of 15 January 1985 . The applicant, who seeks an unconditional discharge, lodged an appeal on a point of law against the Court of Appeal's decision and this appeal is still pending . On 22 September 1985 the Rome Airports Company notified the applicant that in view of the criminal charges brought against him he has been suspended from his duties and subsequently, on 28 September 1982, he was informed that he had been dismissed . On 20 October 1982 the applicant applied to the Employment Tribunal (Pretore) seeking the annulment of his dismissal as unjustified. By order of 6 May 1983 the tribunal decided to stay the proceedings until judgment had been given in the criminal trial . It considered that the trial was decisive for the outcome of the proceedings concerning the employment contract and that the conditions for the mandatory suspension of a civil action uner Articles 3 (2) and 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure were satisfied . 266 The applicant lodged an appeal on a point of law against the order staying the proceedings . The outcome of this eppeal is not yet laiown . On 15 December 1983, following the Rome District Court's decision acquitting Irim, the applicant applied to the Employment Tribunal, under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure eom:erning interi in measures, far an order requiring his employei- to reinstaxe him- On 6 February 1984 the tribtinal rejected the applicant's application on the ground that the conditions laid down in Article 700 of the Code o F Civil Procedure were not satis fied in this instance. 'pHE LA,W (Extract ) 2. The applicant [also] complains that the Employment Tribunals decision to stay the proecedings on the ground that eriminal proceedings were perding against hirn and, in particular, the Tribunal's refusal to adopt the interim measure requested clespite ttie applicant's acquittal in the eriminal proeeedings, constitute a violation of the right to be presumed innocent laid down in Article 6 para . 2 o1'the Convention.. The Commission notes in the first place that the proceedings before the l3mployment Tribunal eoncetned a civil clispute between the applicant and his e:mployer, both private persons . It is clear from the wording of Article 6 para . 2 that this provision does not cover such proceedings and does not therefore apply directly to this case (see inter alia No. 6062/73, Dec. 18.12.74, D.R. 2 p. 54) . Nevertheless, the Commission has considered whether a decision by a civil court to stay proceedings in connection with an action brougnt before it pending; final judgment in criminal proceedings, where such proceedings have b, .en instituted, or i ts refusal to adopt irnterim measures, is capable of giving rise, to a problem in relation to Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention in so far as the decision to stay the proceedings could have adversely affeeted the applicant's case in the criminal proceedings pending against hini . The Commission observes, hoivever, that the decision to stay the proceedings vvas based on the consideration that the outcome of the criininal p-oceedings could irfiuence the decision to be taken in ihe civil proceedings, and that interim emasures v3ere refused because in the case in qnestion the necessaty conditions for the adcption cf such measures were not satisfied . In tlie Commission's view, it is clear from the foregoing that tie civil court did rot take riny assessment of the applicant's guilt or the probability of the applicant's guilt (see No. 7986 177, Dec. 1 .10 .78, D.R. 13 p. 73). 267 Considerationof this complaint therefore discloses no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms secured by the Convention, .in particular Article 6 para. 2 thereof. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention .268