Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF SPERA v. ITALY

Doc ref: 25450/94 • ECHR ID: 001-116

Document date: May 16, 1997

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

CASE OF SPERA v. ITALY

Doc ref: 25450/94 • ECHR ID: 001-116

Document date: May 16, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Spera 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 29/1997/813/1016. 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 22 April 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 19 February 1997 by an Italian national,

Mr Michele Spera, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32

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

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 16 October 1996 on

the application (no. 25450/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr Spera

on 29 November 1989;

Whereas the applicant complained (1) of the length of proceedings

in an Italian administrative court, to which he was a party, alleging

a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), under which

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone

is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...

tribunal ...", and (2) of allegedly arbitrary decisions of the

Avellino Provincial Council, alleging breaches of Articles 3, 6, 7, 8,

13, 14 and 17 of the Convention (art. 3, art. 6, art. 7, art. 8,

art. 13, art. 14, art. 17) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);

Whereas the Commission, in its two decisions on admissibility of

18 October 1995 and 26 June 1996, declared admissible only the

complaint relating to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his

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

stated inter alia that he sought a decision by the Court holding that

there had been breaches of the above-mentioned Articles of the

Convention (art. 3, art. 6, art. 7, art. 8, art. 13, art. 14, art. 17,

P1-1) and ordering the respondent State to pay him just satisfaction

by way of compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained on

account of the length of the proceedings and the decisions of the

Avellino Provincial Council;

Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) 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 of the Convention (art. 6-1), 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 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

16 May 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