CASE OF PORCU v. ITALY



        In the case of Porcu 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 68/1995/574/660.  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 November 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 11 August 1995 by an Italian national,

Mrs Daniela Porcu, 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 24 May 1995 on the

application (no. 24335/94) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Porcu on

12 June 1993;

        Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings

in an Italian civil court, to which she 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 on 28 February 1995 the Commission declared admissible

only the complaint relating to Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention;

        Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of her

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

stated that she sought a decision by the Court holding that there had

been a breach of (i) Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention,

on account of the length of the proceedings in issue, and

(ii) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), on account of the deprivation

of possessions she had allegedly suffered, submitting that she had

informed the Commission, before it adopted its report, that she had

exhausted domestic remedies with regard to this second complaint;

        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

            complaint relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

            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 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

12 December 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