CASE OF SALERNO v. ITALY (No. 2)



     In the case of Salerno 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 132/1996/751/950.  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 2 December 1996, and composed

of the following judges:

     Mr A. Spielmann, Chairman,

     Mr C. Russo,

     Mr J. De Meyer,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

     Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 15 October 1996 by an Italian national,

Mr Vincenzo Salerno, within the three-month period laid down by

Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1,

art. 47);

     Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the

Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified

Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends

Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) 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) of the Convention (art. 48-1-a,

art. 48-1-d);

     Having regard to the Commission's report of 26 June 1996 on the

application (no. 21567/93) lodged with the Commission by Mr Salerno on

19 February 1993;

     Whereas the applicant complained of the length of

criminal proceedings which had been brought against him before the

Italian courts and that he had not had a fair trial in that the

Court of Appeal had refused to examine witnesses on his behalf, and

alleged breaches of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention

(art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d), under which "In the determination of ... any

criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing

within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ..." and "Everyone charged

with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (d) 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";

     Whereas the Commission declared admissible only the complaint

relating to the length of the proceedings and declared the remainder

of the application 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 interpretation by the Court of Articles 26

(art. 26) (as to the final nature of the Rome Court of Appeal's

judgment) and 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (as to the length of the

proceedings) of the Convention, in order to obtain recognition that the

alleged delays arose from a series of circumstances that had aggravated

the pecuniary damage sustained;

     Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) and

Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,

1.   Finds that

(a) the request relating to Article 26 (art. 26) is of no interest

     in this case;

(b) 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 of the Convention (art. 6-1); and

(c) 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

15 January 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Alphonse SPIELMANN

        Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

        Registrar

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy