Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF MANNI v. ITALY

Doc ref: 29132/95 • ECHR ID: 001-110

Document date: April 11, 1997

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

CASE OF MANNI v. ITALY

Doc ref: 29132/95 • ECHR ID: 001-110

Document date: April 11, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Manni 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 6/1997/790/991. 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 20 March 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 16 January 1997 by an Italian national,

Mr Angelo Manni, 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 22 October 1996 on

the application (no. 29132/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr Manni

on 31 March 1994;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in

the Italian civil courts, to which he is a party, and of the lack of

independence and impartiality of one of the courts concerned, and

alleged 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 fair ... hearing within a reasonable

time by an independent and impartial tribunal ...";

Whereas the applicant did not raise the complaint concerning the

alleged lack of impartiality of one of the courts dealing with his case

in his application to the Commission, which, on 2 July 1996, declared

admissible only the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings

and declared the remainder of the application 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 breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) 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 and expenses

incurred before the domestic courts and the Convention institutions;

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 remainder of the application falls outside

its jurisdiction, as the applicant raised the complaint relating

to the alleged lack of independence of one of the courts dealing

with his case for the first time in his application to the Court

and as the Commission has declared inadmissible his complaint

concerning that court's alleged lack of impartiality; 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

11 April 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