Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF MAJANI S.p.a. v. ITALY

Doc ref: 24822/94 • ECHR ID: 001-65

Document date: January 29, 1996

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

CASE OF MAJANI S.p.a. v. ITALY

Doc ref: 24822/94 • ECHR ID: 001-65

Document date: January 29, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Majani S.p.a. 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 96/1995/602/690. 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 30 October 1995 by a company registered in

Italy, Majani S.p.a., 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 4 July 1995 on the

application (no. 24822/94) lodged with the Commission by the

applicant company on 10 September 1993;

Whereas the applicant company complained of the length of

proceedings in an Italian civil court, to which it was a party, 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 11 April 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 applicant company;

Whereas the applicant company, in specifying the object of its

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

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

there had been a violation of the Convention and of Protocol No. 1

(P1) and awarding it (i) just satisfaction consisting in

compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage it had

allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings,

which had delayed its recovery of a sum of money, and

(ii) reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred before the

domestic courts and the Convention institutions;

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 applicant company relied on

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) for the first time in its

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 applicant

company 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