CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 12 mars 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sE20A0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sAEAEF8F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7C610E5B { width:2.58pt; display:inline-block } .s6C9D9F1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA0D91B4B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA182E63D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6463B60D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCB978AC9 { width:331.18pt; display:inline-block } .s5915AC3D { width:278.17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s39C0B46E { width:53.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel         AFFAIRE C.A.R. s.r.l.   c.   ITALIE   CASE OF C.A.R. s.r.l.   v.   ITALY   (108/1997/892/1104)               DECISION                   STRASBOURG     12   mars/March 1998   In the case of C.A.R. s.r.l.   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 23 February 1998, and composed of the following judges:   Mrs   E. Palm , Chairwoman ,   Mr   C. Russo ,   Mr   R. Pekkanen , and also of Mr   H. Petzold , Registrar , Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court on 18   November   1997 by C.A.R. s.r.l., a company registered in that State, 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 10   September   1997 on the application (no.   23924/94) lodged with the Commission by C.A.R. s.r.l. on 22   September   1993; Whereas the applicant company complained of an infringement of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions and relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Whereas the applicant company, in specifying the object of its application, as required by Rule   34 §   1   (a) of Rules   of Court   B, (a) requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and to order the respondent State to pay it just satisfaction by way of compensation for the damage it had allegedly sustained and (b)   stated that it sought a decision by the Court so that the latter could remind States of their responsibilities towards their citizens and immigrants; 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 right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 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 Protocol No. 1, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the applicant company 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 12   March 1998 pursuant to Rule   34 §   4 of Rules   of Court   B.         Signed :   Elisabeth   Palm   Chairwoman Signed :   Herbert Petzold   Registrar   Notes by the Registrar [1] .     The case is numbered 108/1997/892/1104. 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.