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 Carriero 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 69/1995/575/661.   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. _______________           Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 27 September and 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 18 August 1995 by two Italian nationals, Mrs Vittoria Carriero and Mrs Eleonora Carriero, 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 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 5 April 1995 on the application (no. 19977/92) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Vittoria Carriero and Mrs Eleanora Carriero on 7 February 1992;           Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian administrative courts, to which they were parties, and alleged breaches of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention (right to a hearing by a tribunal within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) and Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention (prohibition of all forms of discrimination);           Whereas the applicants did not raise any complaint concerning Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention before the Commission, which, on 17 July 1995, 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 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 (i) holding that there had been breaches of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention and ordering Italy to allow them to build on their land in accordance with the town planning provisions in force between 1978 and 1981 and (ii) ordering the respondent State to pay them compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly sustained and to reimburse the costs incurred before the domestic courts and 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             complaints relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1             (P1-1) and Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention lies             outside the Court's jurisdiction, as the former has been             declared inadmissible by the Commission and the latter             was raised for the first time in the 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 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 12 December 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar