CASE OF A.AR. v. ITALY



         In the case of A.Ar. v. Italy (1),

         The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,

constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

1.  The case is numbered 36/1997/820/1023.  The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications

to the Commission.

2.  Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply

to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).

________________

         Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 22 April 1997, and

composed of the following judges:

         Mr A. Spielmann, Chairman,

         Mr C. Russo,

         Mr J. De Meyer,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

         Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

dated 4 March 1997 lodged with the Court by an Italian national,

Mrs A.Ar., on 13 March 1997;

         Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of

the Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified

Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends

Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) so as to enable a person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a

complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights

("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;

         Noting that the present case has not been referred to the

Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the

Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention

(art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d);

         Having regard to the Commission's report of 22 October 1996

on the application (no. 29135/95) lodged with the Commission by

Mrs Ar. on 26 April 1994;

         Noting that the report was transmitted to the

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 9 December 1996, in

accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention (art. 31-2);

         Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings

in the Italian civil courts, to which she is a party, and alleged the

violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), under

which "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by

[a] ... tribunal ...";

         Whereas, in spite of a reminder by the registry, the applicant

did not specify the object of her application as required by Rule 34

para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B;

         Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 of the

Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47, art. 48) and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3

and 4 of Rules of Court B,

1.       Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 of the

         Convention (art. 32-1), for the Court to have jurisdiction to

         deal with an application the case must be referred to it

         within a period of three months from the date of transmission

         of the Commission's report to the Committee of Ministers,

         failing which it falls to the Committee of Ministers to

         decide whether there has been a violation of the Convention;

2.       Considers that in this case that provision was complied with,

         since the Commission's report was transmitted to the

         Committee of Ministers on 9 December 1996 and the application

         sent to the Court on 4 March 1997, that is before expiry of

         the three-month period, as evidenced by the postmark;

3.       Finds that

         (a)  the case raises no serious question affecting the

              interpretation or application of the Convention, as the

              Court has already established case-law on the

              "reasonable time" requirement in Article 6 para. 1 of

              the Convention (art. 6-1); and

         (b)  the case does not, for any other reason, warrant

              consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding

              that there has been a breach of the Convention, the

              Committee of Ministers can award the applicant just

              satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the

              Commission;

4.       Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be

         considered by the Court.

         Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on

16 May 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Alphonse SPIELMANN

        Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

        Registrar

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy