In the case of Manni 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 6/1997/790/991. 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 20 March 1997, 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 16 January 1997 by an Italian national,
Mr Angelo Manni, 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 22 October 1996 on
the application (no. 29132/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr Manni
on 31 March 1994;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in
the Italian civil courts, to which he is a party, and of the lack of
independence and impartiality of one of the courts concerned, 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 fair ... hearing within a reasonable
time by an independent and impartial tribunal ...";
Whereas the applicant did not raise the complaint concerning the
alleged lack of impartiality of one of the courts dealing with his case
in his application to the Commission, which, on 2 July 1996, declared
admissible only the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings
and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible;
Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had
been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) and
ordering the respondent State to pay him compensation for the pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the
length of the proceedings and to reimburse the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and the Convention institutions;
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. 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), while
consideration of the remainder of the application falls outside
its jurisdiction, as the applicant raised the complaint relating
to the alleged lack of independence of one of the courts dealing
with his case for the first time in his application to the Court
and as the Commission has declared inadmissible his complaint
concerning that court's alleged lack of impartiality; 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
11 April 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