In the case of Ciuffetelli 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 107/1996/726/923. 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 1996, and
composed of the following judges:
Mr R. Macdonald, Chairman,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr A. Spielmann,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic
lodged with the Court on 27 August 1996 by an Italian national,
Mr Carlo Ciuffetelli, 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 21 May 1996 on the
application (no. 27474/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr Ciuffetelli
on 17 October 1994;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in
an Italian civil court, to which he is 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, in specifying the object of his
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
(a) requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and to award him just
satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50), namely compensation for all
the damage he had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs
incurred before the Convention institutions, and (b) stated that he
sought a decision by the Court because in Italy failure to respect the
right to a hearing within a reasonable time was a serious problem which
would be aggravated if the Court did not adopt a series of decisions
against the Italian Republic;
Whereas, in addition, the applicant argued that 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 (P9) 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
21 October 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Ronald MACDONALD
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy