CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 13 septembre 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 Di Bonaventura 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 1/1995/507/589-590.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The third number indicates the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and the last two numbers indicate its position 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 April, 29 June and 1 September 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 2 January 1995 by an Italian national, Mrs Esterina Di Bonaventura, 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 12 October 1994 on the applications (nos. 14147/88 and 22320/93) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Di Bonaventura on 7 May 1988 and 31 July 1991 respectively;           Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian administrative courts, to which she 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 ...", and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), which guarantees every natural or legal person the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions;           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 on account of, inter alia, (i) the considerable pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that had allegedly been caused by the length of the proceedings in issue, her case being distinguishable in that respect from those of Brigandì v. Italy, Zanghì v. Italy and Santilli v. Italy (judgments of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-B, C and D); and (ii) the amount of the just satisfaction claimed;           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.       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 as, contrary to the             applicant's opinion, the case is not distinguishable on             the point in issue from the cases mentioned above; 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 and/or of             Protocol No. 1, 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 13 September 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar