CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 30 octobre 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7C610E5B { width:2.58pt; display:inline-block } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sC4CF4A9C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB978AC9 { width:331.18pt; display:inline-block } .s2E818D51 { width:285.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s39C0B46E { width:53.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }       Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel         AFFAIRE T.A.M. c. ITALIE   CASE OF T.A.M. v. ITALY   (140/1998/1043/1258)               DECISION                   STRASBOURG     30 October 1998   In the case of T.A.M. v. Italy [1] , The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 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] , Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 29 October 1998, and composed of the following judges:   Sir   John Freeland , Chairman ,   Mr   C. Russo ,   Mr   A.B. Baka , and also of Mr   H. Petzold , Registrar , Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court on 9 October 1998 by an Italian national, Mrs   T.A.M., within the three-month period laid down by Article   32 §   1 and Article   47 of the Convention; Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article   46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 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 §   1   (a) or   (d) of the Convention; Having regard to the Commission’s report of 8 July 1998 on the application (no. 37165/97) lodged with the Commission by Mrs   T.A.M. on 8   January   1997; Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian civil courts, to which she was a party, and alleged a breach of Article   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 her application, as required by Rule 34 § 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 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings and ordering the Italian State to pay her just satisfaction by way of compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage she had allegedly sustained and to reimburse the costs and expenses she had incurred before the Convention institutions; Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule 34 §§ 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 § 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 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 30 October 1998 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.         Signed : Sir John Freeland   Chairman Signed : Herbert Petzold   Registrar   Notes by the Registrar [1] .     The case is numbered 140/1998/1043/1258. 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 States bound by Protocol No.   9.