CASE OF DI BLASIO v. ITALY



      In the case of Di Blasio 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 103/1996/722/919.  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 two Italian nationals,

Mr Antonio and Mrs Lorella Di Blasio, 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 16 April 1996 on the

application (no. 24853/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr and

Mrs Di Blasio on 3 February 1994;

      Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings

in an Italian civil court, 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,

(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 them just

satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50), namely compensation for all

the damage they had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs

incurred before the Convention institutions, and (b) stated that they

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 applicants 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 applicants 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