Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF SACCHI v. ITALY

Doc ref: 25107/94 • ECHR ID: 001-76

Document date: January 29, 1996

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

CASE OF SACCHI v. ITALY

Doc ref: 25107/94 • ECHR ID: 001-76

Document date: January 29, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Sacchi 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 86/1995/592/678. 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 24 January 1996, and

composed of the following judges:

Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Mr C. Russo,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 19 September 1995 by an Italian national,

Mr Mario Sacchi, 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. 25107/94) lodged with the Commission by

Mr Sacchi on 19 April 1994;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings

in the Italian civil courts, to which he was a party, and the

infringement in the course of those proceedings of "the principle

of equality of arms", and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention (right of everyone to a hearing by a

tribunal within a reasonable time), Article 6 para. 3 (d)

(art. 6-3-d) (right of everyone to examine or have examined

witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination

of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses

against him) and Article 13 (art. 13) (right to an effective remedy

before a national authority);

Whereas on 11 April 1995 the Commission declared admissible

only the complaint relating to Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention;

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his

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

Court B, (a) asked the Court to hold that there had been breaches

of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) and Article 13 (art. 6-1,

art. 6-3-d, art. 13) of the Convention and to award him

compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained and

reimbursement of the costs incurred before the domestic courts and

the Convention institutions, and (b) stated that he sought a

decision by the Court, as the Committee of Ministers of the Council

of Europe was a political body of which the respondent State was a

member, and as such both party and judge in the same case, a

circumstance which created a serious and excessive imbalance

between the parties when an application was being considered;

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. Notes that under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention the

Committee of Ministers has jurisdiction to decide if necessary

whether there has been a breach of the Convention;

2. Emphasises that under Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention

that jurisdiction is excluded only where the Screening Panel

decides to entertain an application for consideration by the

Court;

3. 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 other complaints lies outside the

Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has declared them

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 can award the applicant just satisfaction, having

regard to any proposals made by the Commission;

4. 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: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant