CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 29 janvier 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 Majani S.p.a. 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 96/1995/602/690.   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 January 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 30 October 1995 by a company registered in Italy, Majani S.p.a., 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 4 July 1995 on the application (no. 24822/94) lodged with the Commission by the applicant company on 10 September 1993;        Whereas the applicant company complained of the length of proceedings in an Italian civil court, to which it was 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 11 April 1995 the Commission declared admissible only the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings in issue, the complaint relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) not having been submitted to it by the applicant company;        Whereas the applicant company, in specifying the object of its application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that it sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been a violation of the Convention and of Protocol No. 1 (P1) and awarding it (i) just satisfaction consisting in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage it had allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings, which had delayed its recovery of a sum of money, and (ii) reimbursement of the costs and expenses 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 second complaint lies outside the      Court's jurisdiction, as the applicant company relied on      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) for the first time in its      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      company 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 29 January 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Franz MATSCHER         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar