Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF D.S. AND O.P. v. ITALY

Doc ref: 16300/90 • ECHR ID: 001-47

Document date: January 29, 1996

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

CASE OF D.S. AND O.P. v. ITALY

Doc ref: 16300/90 • ECHR ID: 001-47

Document date: January 29, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of D.S. and O.P. 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 97/1995/603/691. 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 22 January 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 application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 7 November 1995 by two Italian nationals,

Mrs D.S. and Mrs O.P., 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 27 June 1995 on

the application (no. 16300/90) lodged with the Commission by

Mrs D.S. and Mrs O.P. on 24 October 1989;

Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings

in an Italian civil court, to which they are parties, and alleged

a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, 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 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1), which guarantees every natural or legal person the right to

the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions;

Whereas on 22 February 1995 the Commission declared admissible

only the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings in

issue, the complaint relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

not having been submitted to it by the applicants;

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 violation of the Convention and of

Protocol No. 1 (P1) and awarding them just satisfaction consisting

in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had

allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings,

which had indirectly made it impossible for them to recover certain

property belonging to them;

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,

while consideration of the second complaint lies outside the

Court's jurisdiction, as the applicants relied on Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) for the first time in their application

to the Court; 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

29 January 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