CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 12 décembre 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }          In the case of De Luca 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 87/1995/593/679.   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 21 September 1995 by an Italian national, Mr Vincenzo De Luca, 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 17 May 1995 on the application (no. 22741/93) lodged with the Commission by Mr De Luca on 12 March 1993;           Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in an Italian civil court, to which he 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 ...";           Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and to award him just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50), namely compensation for all the damage he had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs incurred before the Convention institutions, and stated that he sought a decision by the Court because the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was a political body which, given its composition and procedure, was incapable of performing an intrinsically judicial function such as the task of determining whether or not there had been a breach of the Convention in a given case;           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 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; 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 12 December 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar