CASE OF MOTTA (No. 2) v. ITALY



In the case of Motta v. Italy (no. 2) (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 12/1995/518/604. 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 April, 29 June and

1 September 1995, 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 13 February 1995 by an Italian national,

Mr Luciano Motta, 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 18 October 1994

on the application (no. 16804/90) lodged with the Commission by

Mr Motta on 6 March 1990;

Whereas the applicant complained of his arrest, the

deprivation of his liberty and the length of four sets of proceedings

in the Italian civil courts, to which he was a party, and alleged

breaches of Article 5 (art. 5) (right to liberty and security of

person), Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (right to a hearing by a tribunal

within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (art. 8) (right to respect for

private and family life) of the Convention and of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions);

Whereas the applicant did not raise any complaints concerning

Articles 5 and 8 (art. 5, art. 8) of the Convention before the

Commission, which, on 5 July 1994, declared that part of the

application relating to the length of the proceedings in issue

admissible and the complaint relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) inadmissible;

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 violation of his liberty and his dignity and ordering the

respondent State to pay him compensation for the pecuniary and

non-pecuniary damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the

length of the proceedings and to reimburse the costs incurred in the

domestic courts and before 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 other complaints lies

outside the Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has

declared the one relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) inadmissible and as the applicant relied on

Articles 5 and 8 (art. 5, art. 8) of the Convention 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

13 September 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar