CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 21 octobre 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 Ciuffetelli 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 107/1996/726/923.   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 27 September 1996, and composed of the following judges:         Mr R. Macdonald, Chairman,       Mr C. Russo,       Mr A. Spielmann,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,         Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court on 27 August 1996 by an Italian national, Mr Carlo Ciuffetelli, 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 21 May 1996 on the application (no. 27474/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr Ciuffetelli on 17 October 1994;         Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in an Italian civil court, to which he 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 ...";         Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, (a) requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and to award him just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50), namely compensation for all the damage he had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs incurred before the Convention institutions, and (b) stated that he sought a decision by the Court because in Italy failure to respect the right to a hearing within a reasonable time was a serious problem which would be aggravated if the Court did not adopt a series of decisions against the Italian Republic;         Whereas, in addition, the applicant argued that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was a political body which, given its composition and procedure, was incapable of performing an intrinsically judicial function such as the task of determining whether or not there had been a breach of the Convention in a given case;         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.     Notes that under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention the       Committee of Ministers has jurisdiction to decide if necessary       whether there has been a breach of the Convention;   2.     Emphasises that under Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention that       jurisdiction is excluded only where the Screening Panel decides       to entertain an application for consideration by the Court;   3.     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 can award the applicant just            satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the            Commission;   4.     Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be       considered by the Court.         Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 21 October 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Ronald MACDONALD       Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD       Registrar