In the case of Troccolo and Others 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 150/1996/771/968. 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 29 October 1996 by three Italian nationals,
Mrs Michela Troccolo, Mr Lazzaro Carrassi and Mrs Caterina Carrassi,
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 2 July 1996 on the
application (no. 27961/95) lodged with the Commission by the applicants
on 20 June 1994;
Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings
in an Italian civil court, to which they are parties, and alleged a
breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), under which
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone
is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...
tribunal ...";
Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
stated that they sought a decision by the Court holding that there had
been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), but
that the respondent State had not adopted any measure to remedy the
consequences of the length of the proceedings, and ordering the latter
to pay them just satisfaction;
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 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
(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 applicants 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