CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 5 août 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }           In the case of Maffeo and Papa 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 46/1997/830/1036.   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 25 June 1997, and composed of the following judges:            Mr J. De Meyer, Chairman,          Mr C. Russo,          Mr N. Valticos,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,            Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court on 2 May 1997 by two Italian nationals, Mr Walter Maffeo and Mrs Rosa Papa;            Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) 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) of the Convention (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d);            Having regard to the Commission's report of 3 December 1996 on the application (no. 29663/96) lodged with the Commission by Mr Maffeo and Mrs Papa on 20 October 1995;            Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and to the applicants on 29 January 1997, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention (art. 31-2);            Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings in an Italian civil court, to which they were parties, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), under which "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., 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, requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);            Whereas, in addition, the applicants argued that the Committee of Ministers was a body more political than judicial which, given its composition and procedure and the non-binding nature of its decisions, was incapable of performing an intrinsically judicial function such as the task of determining whether or not there had been a breach of the Convention in a given case and awarding just satisfaction where appropriate;            Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47, art. 48) and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.        Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 of the          Convention (art. 32-1), for the Court to have jurisdiction to          deal with an application the case must be referred to it          within a period of three months from the date of transmission          of the Commission's report to the Committee of Ministers,          failing which it falls to the Committee of Ministers to          decide whether there has been a violation of the Convention;   2.        Considers that in this case that provision (art. 32-1) was          complied with, since the Commission's report was transmitted          to the Committee of Ministers and the applicants on          29 January 1997 and the application sent to the Court on          23 April 1997, that is before expiry of the          three-month period, as evidenced by the postmark;   3.        Notes that under Article 32 of the Convention (art. 32) the          Committee of Ministers has jurisdiction to decide if          necessary whether there has been a breach of the Convention;   4.        Emphasises that under Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9)          that jurisdiction is excluded only where the Screening Panel          decides to entertain an application for consideration by the          Court;   5.        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 of the Convention          (art. 6-1); 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 applicants just          satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the          Commission;   6.        Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be          considered by the Court.            Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 5 August 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Jan DE MEYER         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar