CASE OF CARRIERO v. ITALY



        In the case of Carriero 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 69/1995/575/661.  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.

_______________

        Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 27 September and

22 November 1995, and composed of the following judges:

        Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,

        Mr F. Gölcüklü,

        Mr C. Russo,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

        Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 18 August 1995 by two Italian nationals,

Mrs Vittoria Carriero and Mrs Eleonora Carriero, 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 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 5 April 1995 on

the application (no. 19977/92) lodged with the Commission by

Mrs Vittoria Carriero and Mrs Eleanora Carriero on 7 February 1992;

        Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings

in the Italian administrative courts, to which they were parties, and

alleged breaches of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention

(right to a hearing by a tribunal within a reasonable time),

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (right to peaceful enjoyment of

possessions) and Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention (prohibition

of all forms of discrimination);

        Whereas the applicants did not raise any complaint concerning

Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention before the Commission, which,

on 17 July 1995, declared that part of the application relating to the

length of the proceedings in issue admissible and the complaint

relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) inadmissible;

        Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

stated that they sought a decision by the Court (i) holding that there

had been breaches of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and Article 14

(art. 14) of the Convention and ordering Italy to allow them to build

on their land in accordance with the town planning provisions in force

between 1978 and 1981 and (ii) ordering the respondent State to pay

them compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had

allegedly sustained and to reimburse the costs incurred before the

domestic courts and the Convention institutions;

        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.      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, while consideration of the

            complaints relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

            (P1-1) and Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention lies

            outside the Court's jurisdiction, as the former has been

            declared inadmissible by the Commission and the latter

            was raised for the first time in the application to the

            Court; 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 of the Council of Europe can

            award the applicants 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

12 December 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON

        Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

        Registrar

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy