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 Sacchi 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 86/1995/592/678.   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 24 January 1996, 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 19 September 1995 by an Italian national, Mr Mario Sacchi, 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 27 June 1995 on the application (no. 25107/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr Sacchi on 19 April 1994;        Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian civil courts, to which he was a party, and the infringement in the course of those proceedings of "the principle of equality of arms", and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention (right of everyone to a hearing by a tribunal within a reasonable time), Article 6 para. 3 (d) (art. 6-3-d) (right of everyone to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him) and Article 13 (art. 13) (right to an effective remedy before a national authority);        Whereas on 11 April 1995 the Commission declared admissible only the complaint relating to Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;        Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, (a) asked the Court to hold that there had been breaches of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) and Article 13 (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d, art. 13) of the Convention and to award him compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs incurred before the domestic courts and the Convention institutions, and (b) stated that he sought a decision by the Court, as the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was a political body of which the respondent State was a member, and as such both party and judge in the same case, a circumstance which created a serious and excessive imbalance between the parties when an application was being considered;        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,      while consideration of the other complaints lies outside the      Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has declared them      inadmissible; 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 29 January 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar