CASE OF GRANDE AND OTHERS v. ITALY



        In the case of Grande and Others 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 111/1996/730/927.  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 November 1996, and

composed of the following judges:

        Mr A. Spielmann, Chairman,

        Mr C. Russo,

        Mr J. De Meyer,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

        Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 6 September 1996 by eight Italian nationals,

Mr Goffredo Grande, Mrs Elisa Di Gregorio, Mr Francesco Grande,

Mr Umberto Grande, Mr Giovanni Grande, Mrs Artriana Giuliani,

Mrs Silvana Giuliani and Mrs Ivana Grande, within the

three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of

the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47);

        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 2 July 1996 on the

application (no. 27963/95) lodged with the Commission by the applicants

on 14 May 1994;

        Whereas the applicants complained of the length of two sets of

proceedings in the Italian criminal and civil courts, to which they

were parties, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention (art. 6-1), 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 of the Convention (art. 6-1) 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 of the Convention (art. 48) and

Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,

1.      Notes that under Article 32 of the Convention (art. 32) 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 to the Convention (P9)

        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 of the Convention

            (art. 6-1); 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

15 January 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Alphonse SPIELMANN

        Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

        Registrar

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy