CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 15 janvier 1997

.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 Mori Puddu 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 147/1996/768/965.   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 29 November 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 an Italian national, Mrs Bruna Mori Puddu, 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. 17814/91) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Mori Puddu on 19 October 1990;        Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian administrative courts, to which she was a party, and alleged breaches 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 ...", and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), under which every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions;        Whereas the Commission, in its three decisions on admissibility, declared admissible only the complaint relating to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);        Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of her application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that she sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) and ordering the respondent State to pay her just satisfaction as compensation for the damage she had allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings, taking into account in addition the effects that the length of the period in question had had on her right of property;        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), while      consideration of the complaint relating to Article 1 of      Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) lies outside its jurisdiction, as the      Commission has declared it 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 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