Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF CALISTRI v. ITALY

Doc ref: 27473/95 • ECHR ID: 001-92

Document date: January 15, 1997

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

CASE OF CALISTRI v. ITALY

Doc ref: 27473/95 • ECHR ID: 001-92

Document date: January 15, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Calistri 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 113/1996/732/929. 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 November 1996, 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 5 August 1996 by an Italian national,

Mr Massimiliano Calistri, 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 21 May 1996 on the

application (no. 27473/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr Calistri

on 24 October 1994;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in

the Italian criminal and civil courts, to which he is a party, 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 ... hearing within a reasonable time by

[a] ... tribunal ...";

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his

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

(a) requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of

Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6) and to order the respondent State

to pay him just satisfaction as compensation for the damage he had

allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings, which,

he maintained, was a direct consequence of the chronic problem

affecting the conduct of proceedings concerning the payment of

compensation to road accident victims, and (b) stated that he sought

a decision by the Court because in Italy failure to respect the right

to a hearing within a reasonable time was a serious problem but the

respondent Government had not done anything to deal with its causes in

spite of frequently repeated criticisms of the situation by the

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the Court;

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); 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;

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

15 January 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