In the case of Motta v. Italy (no. 2) (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 12/1995/518/604. 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 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 13 February 1995 by an Italian national,
Mr Luciano Motta, 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 18 October 1994
on the application (no. 16804/90) lodged with the Commission by
Mr Motta on 6 March 1990;
Whereas the applicant complained of his arrest, the
deprivation of his liberty and the length of four sets of proceedings
in the Italian civil courts, to which he was a party, and alleged
breaches of Article 5 (art. 5) (right to liberty and security of
person), Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (right to a hearing by a tribunal
within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (art. 8) (right to respect for
private and family life) of the Convention and of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions);
Whereas the applicant did not raise any complaints concerning
Articles 5 and 8 (art. 5, art. 8) of the Convention before the
Commission, which, on 5 July 1994, declared that part of the
application relating to the length of the proceedings in issue
admissible and the complaint relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) 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 violation of his liberty and his dignity 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 incurred in the
domestic courts and before 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 other complaints lies
outside the Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has
declared the one relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) inadmissible and as the applicant relied on
Articles 5 and 8 (art. 5, art. 8) of the Convention for the
first time in his 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
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