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 Ranucci 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 92/1996/711/908.   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 1 August 1996 by an Italian national, Mr Francesco Ranucci, 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 16 April 1996 on the application (no. 27162/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr Ranucci on 8 June 1993;         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, 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, fixing a time-limit within which the respondent State must put an end to the violation and ordering Italy to pay him compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings in issue;         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 does not, in any case, have jurisdiction to            make orders such as the one sought by the applicant; 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 21 October 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Ronald MACDONALD       Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD       Registrar