CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 30 octobre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s4F60E34E { 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 } .sCC5C9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84DC20D0 { font-variant:small-caps } .sFBC99493 { 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 } .s4CBECF56 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s38DCDC2C { width:9.88pt; display:inline-block } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB87A5EF0 { margin-left:18pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDFBC252C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:176.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s37B5162F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:247.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 TRONCATO c. ITALIE   CASE OF TRONCATO v. ITALY   (85/1997/869/1081)           DECISION   STRASBOURG             30 octobre/October 1997       In the case of Troncato 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 21 October 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 September 1997 by an Italian national, Mrs Palmina Troncato, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 §   1 and Article   47 of the Convention; 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 (“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 § 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention; Having regard to the Commission's report of 28 May 1997 on the application (no. 31637/96) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Troncato on 19 April 1995; Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian civil courts, to which she was a party, and alleged a breach of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, 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 applicant, in specifying the object of her application, as required by Rule 34 § 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 § 1 of the Convention and ordering the respondent State to pay her just satisfaction by way of compensation for the damage she had allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings; Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule 34 §§ 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 § 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 of the Council of Europe can award the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the Commission;   Decides , therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be considered by the Court.   Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 30 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 85/1997/869/1081. 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 States bound by Protocol No. 9.