In the case of Angelone and Celeste 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 20/1996/639/823. 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 28 March and 23 April 1996,
and composed of the following judges:
Mr F. Matscher, Chairman,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr C. Russo,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic
lodged with the Court on 19 February 1996 by two Italian nationals,
Mr Venanzio Angelone and Mrs Wilma Celeste, within the three-month
period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1,
art. 47) of the Convention;
Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified
Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends
Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention 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) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the
Convention;
Having regard to the Commission's report of 24 October 1995 on
the application (no. 24162/94) lodged with the Commission by
Mr Angelone and Mrs Celeste on 26 July 1991;
Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings
in an Italian civil court, to which they were parties, and alleged a
breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, 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 the applicants, in specifying the object of their
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
(a) requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and to award them just
satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50), that is compensation for all
the damage they had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs
they had incurred, and (b) stated that they sought a decision by the
Court because failure to respect the right to a hearing within a
reasonable time was a serious problem in Italy and the length of the
proceedings had placed them under severe psychological and economic
pressure;
Whereas, in addition, the applicants argued that the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe was a political body which, given
its composition and procedure, was incapable of performing an
intrinsically judicial function such as the task of determining whether
or not there had been a breach of the Convention in a given case;
Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention and
Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1. Notes that under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention the
Committee of Ministers has jurisdiction to decide if necessary
whether there has been a breach of the Convention;
2. Emphasises that under Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention that
jurisdiction is excluded only where the Screening Panel decides
to entertain an application for consideration by the Court;
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 (art. 6-1) of the
Convention; 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 applicants 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
24 May 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Franz MATSCHER
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy