In the case of Calistri 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 113/1996/732/929. 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 25 November 1996, 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
lodged with the Court on 5 August 1996 by an Italian national,
Mr Massimiliano Calistri, within the three-month period laid down by
Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1,
art. 47);
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 21 May 1996 on the
application (no. 27473/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr Calistri
on 24 October 1994;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in
the Italian criminal and civil courts, to which he is a party, and
alleged a breach 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 the applicant, in specifying the object of his
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 of the Convention (art. 6) and to order the respondent State
to pay him just satisfaction as compensation for the damage he had
allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings, which,
he maintained, was a direct consequence of the chronic problem
affecting the conduct of proceedings concerning the payment of
compensation to road accident victims, and (b) stated that he sought
a decision by the Court because in Italy failure to respect the right
to a hearing within a reasonable time was a serious problem but the
respondent Government had not done anything to deal with its causes in
spite of frequently repeated criticisms of the situation by the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the Court;
Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) and
Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1. 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;
2. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be
considered by the Court.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on
15 January 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