Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF ESPOSITO v. ITALY

Doc ref: 14031/88 • ECHR ID: 001-102

Document date: August 5, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF ESPOSITO v. ITALY

Doc ref: 14031/88 • ECHR ID: 001-102

Document date: August 5, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Esposito 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 151/1996/772/971. 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 25 June 1997, and composed

of the following judges:

Mr A. Spielmann, Chairman,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr J. De Meyer,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 29 November 1996 by an Italian national,

Mrs Maria Esposito;

Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the

Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified

Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends

Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) 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) of the Convention (art. 48-1-a,

art. 48-1-d);

Having regard to the Commission's report of 15 May 1996 on the

application (no. 14031/88) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Esposito

on 1 March 1988;

Noting that the report was transmitted to the

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and to the applicant

on 26 June 1996, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention (art. 31-2);

Whereas the applicant complained of an infringement of her right

to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions and relied on Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of her

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and to order the respondent State to pay her

just satisfaction by way of compensation for the damage she had

allegedly sustained;

Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 of the Convention

(art. 32-1, art. 47, art. 48) and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of

Rules of Court B,

1. Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 of the Convention

(art. 32-1), 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. Notes that in this case the Commission's report was transmitted

to the Committee of Ministers and to the applicant on

26 June 1996 and the application sent to the Court on

20 November 1996, that is nearly two months after expiry of the

three-month period, a lapse of time which the applicant explained

by the delayed arrival of correspondence from the Court and by

a long period of illness she had suffered;

3. Considers that the file does not disclose any special

circumstance of a nature to suspend the running of time or

justify its starting to run afresh;

4. Holds, therefore, unanimously, that it cannot consider the

application.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on

5 August 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Alphonse SPIELMANN

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant