Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF MORI PUDDU v. ITALY

Doc ref: 17814/91 • ECHR ID: 001-112

Document date: January 15, 1997

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

CASE OF MORI PUDDU v. ITALY

Doc ref: 17814/91 • ECHR ID: 001-112

Document date: January 15, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Mori Puddu 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 147/1996/768/965. 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 29 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 29 October 1996 by an Italian national,

Mrs Bruna Mori Puddu, 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 26 June 1996 on the

application (no. 17814/91) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Mori Puddu

on 19 October 1990;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in

the Italian administrative courts, to which she was a party, and

alleged breaches 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 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), under

which every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions;

Whereas the Commission, in its three decisions on admissibility,

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 her

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

stated that she 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 her just satisfaction as

compensation for the damage she had allegedly sustained on account of

the length of the proceedings, taking into account in addition the

effects that the length of the period in question had had on her right

of property;

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 complaint relating to Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) lies outside its jurisdiction, as the

Commission has declared it 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

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