CASE OF PICCININI v. ITALY



      In the case of Piccinini 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 78/1996/697/889.  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 June 1996, and composed

of the following judges:

           Mr R. Macdonald, Chairman,

           Mr C. Russo,

           Mr A. Spielmann,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

      Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 12 April 1996 by an Italian national,

Mr Claudio Piccinini, 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 23 January 1996 on

the application (no. 26031/94) lodged with the Commission by

Mr Piccinini on 10 January 1994;

      Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in

an Italian civil court, to which he is 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 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 (art. 6-1) of the Convention,

considering the merits of his complaint under Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and ordering the respondent State to compensate

him for the damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the length

of the proceedings in issue;

      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 and respect for

      the right of property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

      (P1-1), and in particular concerning the possible effects of the

      length of proceedings on that right; 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 and/or of Protocol No. 1 (P1), 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

31 July 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Ronald MACDONALD

      Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

      Registrar

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy