Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF SORBO v. ITALY

Doc ref: 27468/95 • ECHR ID: 001-115

Document date: January 15, 1997

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

CASE OF SORBO v. ITALY

Doc ref: 27468/95 • ECHR ID: 001-115

Document date: January 15, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Sorbo 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 114/1996/733/930. 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 12 September 1996 by an Italian national,

Mrs Mariarosaria Sorbo, 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. 27468/95) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Sorbo on

2 September 1994;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in

an Italian civil court, to which she 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 her

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

requested the Court to hold that the Commission's report was not

legally valid as it did not take into consideration her objection that

the respondent Government's observations to the Commission had been

submitted out of time, to reject those observations, to hold that there

had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1)

and to order the respondent State to pay her compensation for the

pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage she had allegedly sustained on

account of the length of the proceedings;

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 first two of the applicant's requests are of no interest in

this case;

(b) 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

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