CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 31 juillet 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 Grignano 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 52/1996/671/857.   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 June 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 application against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court on 25 March 1996 by an Italian national, Mr Giovanni Grignano, 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 23 January 1996 on the application (no. 26408/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr Grignano on 16 June 1993;         Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in an Italian civil court, to which he is a party, and that he did not have a fair trial before an impartial tribunal 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 fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by an ... impartial tribunal ... ";         Whereas on 24 October 1995 the Commission declared admissible only the complaint relating to the length of the civil proceedings, the complaint relating to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal not having been submitted to it by the applicant;         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 breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and ordering the respondent State to pay him compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings in issue and the lack of impartiality of the civil court dealing with the 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.     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 a fair trial before an impartial tribunal lies outside            its jurisdiction, as the applicant raised it 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 31 July 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Franz MATSCHER       Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD       Registrar