Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF CAPOCCIA v. ITALY

Doc ref: 16752/90;16755/90;16873/90 • ECHR ID: 001-3

Document date: September 13, 1995

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

CASE OF CAPOCCIA v. ITALY

Doc ref: 16752/90;16755/90;16873/90 • ECHR ID: 001-3

Document date: September 13, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Capoccia 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 9/1995/515/599-600-601. 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 three 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 April, 29 June and

1 September 1995, 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 January 1995 by an Italian national,

Mr Vittorio Capoccia, 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 31 August 1994 on

the applications (nos. 16752/90, 16755/90 and 16873/90) lodged with the

Commission by Mr Capoccia on 16 February 1989, 17 November 1988 and

5 June 1990 respectively;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of three sets

of criminal proceedings which had been brought against him before 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 applicant, in specifying the object of his

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

stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had

been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and

ordering the respondent State to pay him appropriate compensation for

the damage that the length of the proceedings in issue had allegedly

caused him, seeing that in respect of the damage sustained in a fourth

set of proceedings (application no. 16479/90) the Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe had awarded him what he considered

insufficient reparation (Committee of Ministers Resolution (94) 519 of

16 November 1994);

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 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

13 September 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant