In the case of Chiaravalle 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 2/1995/508/591. 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 April, 29 June and
1 September 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 9 January 1995 by an Italian national,
Mr Mario Chiaravalle, within the three-month period laid down by
Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention.
Noting that the applicant, initially referred to by the letters
M.C., agreed, after he had brought his case before the Court, to the
disclosure of his identity;
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 31 August 1994 on the
application (no. 17048/90) lodged with the Commission by Mr Chiaravalle
on 20 July 1990;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in an
Italian civil court, to which he was a party, 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 applicant requested just satisfaction under Article 50
(art. 50) of the Convention, compensation for all the damage he had
allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs incurred before the
Convention institutions;
Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application,
as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of
Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court because 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 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
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
13 September 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