CASE OF DI BONAVENTURA v. ITALY



        In the case of Di Bonaventura 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 1/1995/507/589-590.  The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number).  The third number indicates the case's

position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation

and the last two numbers indicate its position 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 2 January 1995 by an Italian national,

Mrs Esterina Di Bonaventura, 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 12 October 1994

on the applications (nos. 14147/88 and 22320/93) lodged with the

Commission by Mrs Di Bonaventura on 7 May 1988 and 31 July 1991

respectively;

        Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings

in the Italian administrative courts, to which she 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 ...", and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), which

guarantees every natural or legal person the right to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions;

        Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of her

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

stated that she sought a decision by the Court on account of, inter

alia, (i) the considerable pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that had

allegedly been caused by the length of the proceedings in issue, her

case being distinguishable in that respect from those of Brigandì v.

Italy, Zanghì v. Italy and Santilli v. Italy (judgments of

19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-B, C and D); and (ii) the amount of

the just satisfaction claimed;

        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, contrary to the

            applicant's opinion, the case is not distinguishable on

            the point in issue from the cases mentioned above; 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 and/or of

            Protocol No. 1, 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