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 Porcu 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 68/1995/574/660.   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 11 August 1995 by an Italian national, Mrs Daniela Porcu, 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 24 May 1995 on the application (no. 24335/94) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Porcu on 12 June 1993;           Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in an Italian civil court, to which she 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 ...", 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 on 28 February 1995 the Commission declared admissible only the complaint relating to Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;           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 (i) Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, on account of the length of the proceedings in issue, and (ii) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), on account of the deprivation of possessions she had allegedly suffered, submitting that she had informed the Commission, before it adopted its report, that she had exhausted domestic remedies with regard to this second complaint;           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             complaint relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)             lies outside the Court's 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 12 December 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar