Chiaravalle v. Italy



In the case of Chiaravalle 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 2/1995/508/591. 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 9 January 1995 by an Italian national,

Mr Mario Chiaravalle, within the three-month period laid down by

Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention.

Noting that the applicant, initially referred to by the letters

M.C., agreed, after he had brought his case before the Court, to the

disclosure of his identity;

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 31 August 1994 on the

application (no. 17048/90) lodged with the Commission by Mr Chiaravalle

on 20 July 1990;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in an

Italian civil court, to which he 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

...";

Whereas the applicant requested just satisfaction under Article 50

(art. 50) of the Convention, compensation for all the damage he had

allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs incurred before the

Convention institutions;

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 because the

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was a political body

which, given its composition and procedure, was incapable of performing

an intrinsically judicial function such as the task of determining

whether or not there had been a breach of the Convention in a given 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 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 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; 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

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

Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar