In the case of Majani S.p.a. 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 96/1995/602/690. 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 22 January 1996, and
composed of the following judges:
Mr F. Matscher, Chairman,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr C. Russo,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic
lodged with the Court on 30 October 1995 by a company registered in
Italy, Majani S.p.a., 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 4 July 1995 on the
application (no. 24822/94) lodged with the Commission by the
applicant company on 10 September 1993;
Whereas the applicant company complained of the length of
proceedings in an Italian civil court, to which it 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 on 11 April 1995 the Commission declared admissible
only the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings in
issue, the complaint relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)
not having been submitted to it by the applicant company;
Whereas the applicant company, in specifying the object of its
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of
Court B, stated that it sought a decision by the Court holding that
there had been a violation of the Convention and of Protocol No. 1
(P1) and awarding it (i) just satisfaction consisting in
compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage it had
allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings,
which had delayed its recovery of a sum of money, and
(ii) reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred before the
domestic courts and the Convention institutions;
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,
while consideration of the second complaint lies outside the
Court's jurisdiction, as the applicant company relied on
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) for the first time in its
application to the Court; 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
company 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
29 January 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Franz MATSCHER
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy