Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel
AFFAIRE PATTERI c. ITALIE
CASE OF PATTERI v. ITALY
(69/1998/972/1187)
DECISION
STRASBOURG
3 septembre/September 1998
In the case of Patteri v. Italy[1],
The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 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],
Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 26 August 1998, and composed of the following judges:
MrA.N. Loizou, Chairman,
MrC. Russo,
MrJ.M. Morenilla,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court on 2 July 1998 by an Italian national, Mr Fabio Patteri;
Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 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 § 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention;
Having regard to the Commission’s report of 21 January 1998 on the application (no. 34833/97) lodged with the Commission by Mr Patteri on 10 September 1994;
Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 23 March 1998, in accordance with Article 31 § 2 of the Convention;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian civil courts, to which he was a party, and of the lack of impartiality of the judges of the Cagliari Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation, and alleged a breach of Article 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 an … impartial tribunal…”;
Whereas on 28 October 1997 the Commission declared admissible only the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings;
Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 § 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 § 1 of the Convention and ordering the respondent State to pay him just satisfaction by way of compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings and the lack of impartiality of the judges of the Cagliari Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation;
Having regard to Articles 32 § 1, 47 and 48 of the Convention and Rule 34 §§ 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1.Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 § 1 of the Convention, for the Court to have jurisdiction to deal with an application the case must be referred to it within a period of three months from the date of transmission of the Commission’s report to the Committee of Ministers, failing which it falls to the Committee of Ministers to decide whether there has been a violation of the Convention;
2.Considers that in this case that provision was complied with, since the Commission’s report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers on 23 March 1998 and the application sent to the Court on 10 June 1998, that is before expiry of the three-month period;
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 § 1 of the Convention, while consideration of the other complaint lies outside the Court’s jurisdiction, as the Commission has declared it inadmissible; 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 applicant 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 3 September 1998 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Andreas Nicolas Loizou
Chairman
Signed: Herbert Petzold
Registrar
[1]Notes by the Registrar
. The case is numbered 69/1998/972/1187. 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 States bound by Protocol No. 9.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy