CASE OF L.M. v. ITALY



In the case of L.M. 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 2/1996/621/804. 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 March and 23 April 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 4 January 1996 by an Italian national,

Mr L.M.;

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. 24825/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr L.M. on

4 August 1993;

Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe on 21 September 1995, in accordance

with Article 31 para. 2 (art. 31-2) of the Convention;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in

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

were unfair on account of that length, 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 fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...

tribunal ...";

Whereas, in spite of a reminder by the registry, the applicant

did not specify the object of his application as required by Rule 34

para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B;

Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 (art. 32-1,

art. 47, art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4

of Rules of Court B,

1 Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the

Convention, for the Court to have jurisdiction to deal with an

application the case must be referred to it within a period of

three months from the date of transmission of the Commission's

report to the Committee of Ministers, failing which it falls to

the Committee of Ministers to decide whether there has been a

violation of the Convention;

2 Considers that in this case that provision was complied with,

since the Commission's report was transmitted to the Committee

of Ministers on 21 September 1995 and the application, although

it reached the secretariat of the Commission on 2 January 1996

and was communicated to the registry of the Court by the

Commission on 4 January, had been sent on 30 November 1995, that

is twenty-one days before expiry of the three-month period;

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

15 May 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Franz MATSCHER

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar