In the case of Sacchi 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 86/1995/592/678. 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 24 January 1996, 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 19 September 1995 by an Italian national,
Mr Mario Sacchi, 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 27 June 1995 on
the application (no. 25107/94) lodged with the Commission by
Mr Sacchi on 19 April 1994;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings
in the Italian civil courts, to which he was a party, and the
infringement in the course of those proceedings of "the principle
of equality of arms", and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention (right of everyone to a hearing by a
tribunal within a reasonable time), Article 6 para. 3 (d)
(art. 6-3-d) (right of everyone to examine or have examined
witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination
of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses
against him) and Article 13 (art. 13) (right to an effective remedy
before a national authority);
Whereas on 11 April 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 his
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of
Court B, (a) asked the Court to hold that there had been breaches
of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) and Article 13 (art. 6-1,
art. 6-3-d, art. 13) of the Convention and to award him
compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained and
reimbursement of the costs incurred before the domestic courts and
the Convention institutions, and (b) stated that he sought a
decision by the Court, as the Committee of Ministers of the Council
of Europe was a political body of which the respondent State was a
member, and as such both party and judge in the same case, a
circumstance which created a serious and excessive imbalance
between the parties when an application was being considered;
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. Notes that under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention the
Committee of Ministers has jurisdiction to decide if necessary
whether there has been a breach of the Convention;
2. Emphasises that under Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention
that jurisdiction is excluded only where the Screening Panel
decides to entertain an application for consideration by the
Court;
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 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 them
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
29 January 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy