CASE OF COSER v. ITALY



         In the case of Coser 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 50/1997/834/1040.  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 June 1997, and composed

of the following judges:

         Mr J. De Meyer, Chairman,

         Mr C. Russo,

         Mr N. Valticos,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

         Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 26 May 1997 by an Italian national,

Mr Lauro Coser;

         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 16 October 1996

on the application (no. 24854/94) lodged with the Commission by

Mr Coser on 15 May 1994;

         Noting that the report was transmitted to the

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and to the applicant

on 22 November 1996, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention (art. 31-2);

         Whereas the applicant complained of the length of

criminal proceedings which had been brought against him before an

Italian court, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention (art. 6-1), under which "In the determination 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 covering the case as a

whole rather than just the length of the proceedings, so as to include

the charge brought against him;

         Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 of the

Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47, art. 48) and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3

and 4 of Rules of Court B,

1.       Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 of the

         Convention (art. 32-1), for the Court to have jurisdiction to

         deal with an application the case must be referred to it

         within a period of three months from the date of transmission

         of the Commission's report to the Committee of Ministers,

         failing which it falls to the Committee of Ministers to

         decide whether there has been a violation of the Convention;

2.       Notes that in this case the Commission's report was

         transmitted to the Committee of Ministers and to the

         applicant on 22 November 1996 and the application sent to the

         Court on 20 May 1997, as evidenced by the postmark, that is

         nearly three months after expiry of the three-month period;

3.       Considers that the file does not disclose any special

         circumstance of a nature to suspend the running of time or

         justify its starting to run afresh;

4.       Holds, therefore, unanimously, that it cannot consider the

         application.

         The Screening Panel observes, moreover, that the

Committee of Ministers gave its decision on the application on

15 May 1997.

         Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on

5 August 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Jan DE MEYER

        Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

        Registrar

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy