In the case of Varvaro 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 19/1996/638/822. 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 March and 23 April 1996,
and composed of the following judges:
Mr F. Matscher, Chairman,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
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 February 1996 by an Italian national,
Mr Leonardo Varvaro;
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 13 September 1995 on
the application (no. 25251/94) lodged with the Commission by the
Mr Varvaro on 8 August 1993;
Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe on 16 November 1995, in accordance
with Article 31 para. 2 (art. 31-2) of the Convention;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in
the Italian civil courts, to which he was 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
...";
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 on
account of the length of the proceedings in issue and ordering the
respondent State to compensate him for the damage he had allegedly
sustained as a result of the failure to comply with the "reasonable
time" requirement;
Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 (art. 32-1,
art. 47, art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4
of Rules of Court B,
1. Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the
Convention, for the Court to have jurisdiction to deal with an
application the case must be referred to it within a period of
three months from the date of transmission of the Commission's
report to the Committee of Ministers, failing which it falls to
the Committee of Ministers to decide whether there has been a
violation of the Convention;
2. considers that in this case that provision was complied with,
since the Commission's report was transmitted to the Committee
of Ministers on 16 November 1995 and the application reached the
secretariat of the Commission on 8 February 1996, that is eight
days before expiry of the three-month period, and was then
communicated to the registry of the Court by the Commission on
19 February;
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; 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
15 May 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Franz MATSCHER
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy