CASE OF CICELY AND OTHERS v. ITALY



        In the case of Cicely and Others 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 54/1995/560/645.  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 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 2 June 1995 by Mr Burlamacchi, acting on

behalf of Mrs Juliet Cicely (a United Kingdom national) and the other

heirs (of United Kingdom and New Zealand nationality) of a Mr S.,

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 the Government of the respondent State or that of the

Contracting State of which some of the applicants are nationals or the

Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a), (b) or (d) (art. 48-1-a,

art. 48-1-b, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;

        Having regard to the Commission's report of 17 January 1995

on the application (no. 22527/93), lodged with the Commission by the

applicants on 9 December 1992;

        Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings

in the Italian civil courts, to which they are 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,

stated that they sought a decision by the Court holding that there had

been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on

account of the length of the proceedings in issue and ordering the

respondent State to pay them compensation for the considerable damage

they had allegedly sustained through the failure to comply with the

"reasonable time" requirement and an error made by one of the judges

dealing with the 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.      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 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