In the case of Colacioppo v. Italy (no. 2) (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 3/1995/509/592. 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 16 January 1995 by an Italian national,
Mr Antonio Colacioppo, 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 18 October 1994 on
the application (no. 20210/92) lodged with the Commission by Mr
Colacioppo on 30 March 1992;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in
the Italian criminal courts, 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 or of any
criminal charge against him, 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,
stated that he sought a decision by the Court on account of, inter
alia, a disagreement between himself and the Commission about the
length of the period to be taken into consideration under Article 6
para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and to obtain an order requiring
the respondent State to make good the considerable pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the length
of the proceedings in issue;
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 as the case turns mainly on its facts; 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 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
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