CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 3 octobre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s141F584E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6C9D9F1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s128F7B00 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFF5CEE3D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:12pt } .s6463B60D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCB978AC9 { width:331.18pt; display:inline-block } .sB0DDE566 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:282.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:22.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF16E9E88 { width:52.16pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }     Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel       AFFAIRE GARBERI c. ITALIE   CASE OF GARBERI v. ITALY   (83/1997/867/1078–1079)           DECISION   STRASBOURG     3 octobre/October 1997         In the case of Garberi v. Italy [1] , The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 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] , Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 29 September 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 11 August 1997 by three Italian nationals, Mr Ezio Garberi, Mr Maurizio Garberi and Mrs Vittorina Ghirardi, the widow of Mr Pierangelo Garberi; Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 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 (“he 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   § 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention; Having regard to the Commission's report of 4 March 1997 on the applications (nos. 27956/95 and 30599/96) lodged with the Commission by Mr Pierangelo Garberi and Mr Ezio Garberi on 13 November 1993 and by Mr Maurizio Garberi on 27 November 1995; Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and to the applicants on 21 April 1997, in accordance with Article 31 § 2 of the Convention; Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian civil courts, to which they were parties, and alleged breaches of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an impartial tribunal), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy before a national authority) and Article 14 (prohibition of all forms of discrimination); Whereas on 3 December 1996 the Commission declared admissible the complaints relating to the length of the proceedings and the non-existence of an effective remedy in Italian law, and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible; Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their application, as required by Rule 34 § 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that they sought a decision by the Court (i) holding that there had been breaches of Articles   6   §   1, 13 and 14 of the Convention; (ii) ruling whether or not there had been a conflict of interests between themselves and the Commission, which had decided not to refer the case to the Court; and (iii) ordering the respondent State to pay them just satisfaction consisting in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly sustained and to reimburse the costs and expenses they had incurred before the domestic courts and the Convention institutions; Having regard to Articles 32 § 1, 47 and 48 of the Convention and Rule   34   §§   1   (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.   Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 § 1 of the Convention, 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.   Notes that in this case the Commission's report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers and to the applicants on 21 April 1997 and the application sent to the Court on 9 August 1997, after expiry of the three-month period; 3.   Considers that the file does not disclose any special circumstance of a nature to suspend the running of time or justify its starting to run afresh; 4.   Holds , therefore, unanimously, that it cannot consider the application.   Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 3 October 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.       Signed : Jan De Meyer Chairman Signed : Herbert Petzold   Registrar Notes by the Registrar 1.     The case is numbered 83/1997/867/1078-1079. 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 two 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 States bound by Protocol No. 9.