CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 24 mai 1996

.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 Al Maradni and Gamba 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 24/1996/643/826-827.   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 March and 23 April 1996, and composed of the following judges:            Mr F. Matscher, Chairman,          Mr L.-E. Pettiti,          Mr C. Russo,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,            Having regard to the applications against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court on 27 February 1996 by a Syrian national, Mr Mohamed Nabil Al Maradni, and an Italian citizen, Mr Renato Gamba, 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 1995 on applications nos. 16387/90, 16388/90, 19999/92 and 22102/93, of which the first two were lodged with the Commission by Mr Al Maradni, on 30 November 1989, and Mr Gamba, on 4 December 1989;            Whereas the applicants complained of the length of criminal proceedings which had been brought against them in the Italian courts, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...";            Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that they sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings in issue, due to an error concerning them committed by an investigating judge, and ordering the respondent State to make reparation for the non-pecuniary damage, by disseminating the judgment in an appropriate manner, and the pecuniary damage they had allegedly sustained;            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     (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 applicants 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 24 May 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Franz MATSCHER          Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD          Registrar