Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF AL MARADNI AND GAMBA v. ITALY

Doc ref: 16387/90;16388/90;19999/92;22102/93 • ECHR ID: 001-33

Document date: May 24, 1996

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

CASE OF AL MARADNI AND GAMBA v. ITALY

Doc ref: 16387/90;16388/90;19999/92;22102/93 • ECHR ID: 001-33

Document date: May 24, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Al Maradni and Gamba 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 24/1996/643/826-827. The first number

is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court

in the relevant year (second number). The third number indicates

the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court

since its creation and the last two numbers indicate its position

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 28 March and

23 April 1996, and composed of the following judges:

Mr F. Matscher, Chairman,

Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Mr C. Russo,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the applications against the Italian

Republic lodged with the Court on 27 February 1996 by a Syrian

national, Mr Mohamed Nabil Al Maradni, and an Italian citizen,

Mr Renato Gamba, within the three-month period laid down by

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

Convention;

Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction

of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and

ratified Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5)

of which amends Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention 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) (art. 48-1-a,

art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;

Having regard to the Commission's report of

18 October 1995 on applications nos. 16387/90, 16388/90, 19999/92

and 22102/93, of which the first two were lodged with the

Commission by Mr Al Maradni, on 30 November 1989, and Mr Gamba,

on 4 December 1989;

Whereas the applicants complained of the length of

criminal proceedings which had been brought against them in the

Italian courts, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In the determination

of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to

a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...";

Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their

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

Court B, stated that they sought a decision by the Court holding

that there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of

the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings in

issue, due to an error concerning them committed by an

investigating judge, and ordering the respondent State to make

reparation for the non-pecuniary damage, by disseminating the

judgment in an appropriate manner, and the pecuniary damage they

had allegedly sustained;

Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention

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

(art. 6-1) of the Convention; 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 applicants 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 24 May 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Franz MATSCHER

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant