In the case of Eugénio da Conceição v. Portugal (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 96/1996/715/912. 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 September 1996, and
composed of the following judges:
Mr R. Macdonald, Chairman,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the Portuguese Republic
lodged with the Court on 7 August 1996 by a Portuguese national,
Mr Alberto Eugénio da Conceição, within the three-month period laid
down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the
Convention;
Whereas Portugal 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 11 April 1996 on the
application (no. 24099/94) lodged with the Commission by
Mr Eugénio da Conceição on 21 April 1994;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of
proceedings in the Portuguese civil 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
..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... 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 his
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
criticised the way the Commission had classified his complaints and
stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had
been a breach of both Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction
with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1+P1-1) of the Convention and of the
latter provision taken separately in respect of the requirements
relating to reasonable time and a fair hearing;
Whereas the Commission, in its decision of 29 November 1995 on
the admissibility of the application, declared the complaints
admissible, taking them as a whole in relation to the length of the
proceedings;
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, on respect for
the right of property, guaranteed by Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), and in particular on the way this last
right could be affected by protracted proceedings; 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
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