CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 16 mai 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 Spera 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 29/1997/813/1016.   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 April 1997, and composed of the following judges:         Mr A. Spielmann, Chairman,       Mr C. Russo,       Mr J. De Meyer,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,         Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court on 19 February 1997 by an Italian national, Mr Michele Spera, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47);         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 16 October 1996 on the application (no. 25450/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr Spera on 29 November 1989;         Whereas the applicant complained (1) of the length of proceedings in an Italian administrative court, to which he was a party, alleging 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 ...", and (2) of allegedly arbitrary decisions of the Avellino Provincial Council, alleging breaches of Articles 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention (art. 3, art. 6, art. 7, art. 8, art. 13, art. 14, art. 17) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);         Whereas the Commission, in its two decisions on admissibility of 18 October 1995 and 26 June 1996, declared admissible only the complaint relating to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);         Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated inter alia that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been breaches of the above-mentioned Articles of the Convention (art. 3, art. 6, art. 7, art. 8, art. 13, art. 14, art. 17, P1-1) and ordering the respondent State to pay him just satisfaction by way of compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings and the decisions of the Avellino Provincial Council;         Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) 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 of the Convention (art. 6-1), 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 of the       Council of Europe 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 16 May 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Alphonse SPIELMANN         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar