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 Motta v. Italy (no. 2) (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 12/1995/518/604.   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 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 13 February 1995 by an Italian national, Mr Luciano Motta, 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 18 October 1994 on the application (no. 16804/90) lodged with the Commission by Mr Motta on 6 March 1990;           Whereas the applicant complained of his arrest, the deprivation of his liberty and the length of four sets of proceedings in the Italian civil courts, to which he was a party, and alleged breaches of Article 5 (art. 5) (right to liberty and security of person), Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (right to a hearing by a tribunal within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (art. 8) (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions);           Whereas the applicant did not raise any complaints concerning Articles 5 and 8 (art. 5, art. 8) of the Convention before the Commission, which, on 5 July 1994, declared that part of the application relating to the length of the proceedings in issue admissible and the complaint relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) inadmissible;           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 violation of his liberty and his dignity and ordering the respondent State to pay him compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings and to reimburse the costs incurred in the domestic courts and before the Convention institutions;           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, while consideration of the other complaints lies         outside the Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has         declared the one relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1         (P1-1) inadmissible and as the applicant relied on         Articles 5 and 8 (art. 5, art. 8) of the Convention for the         first time in his application to the Court; 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 13 September 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar