CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 3 juin 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 } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s128F7B00 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; 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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7BE6ED56 { width:43.66pt; display:inline-block } .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 A.D. c. ITALIE   CASE OF A.D. v. ITALY   (14/1998/917/1129)               DECISION               STRASBOURG     … mai/… May1998       In the case of A.D. 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 20 May 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 27 February 1998 by an Italian national, Mr   A.D., 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 October 1997 on the application (no. 26774/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr   A.D. on 10   June   1994; Whereas the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of criminal proceedings which had been brought against him before the Italian courts (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention), of an infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence (Article 6 §   2), that he had not been promptly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (Article 6 §   3   (a)), that he had not been able to examine or have examined witnesses against him (Article 6 § 3 (d)), of an infringement of the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law (Article 7), that he had not had access to a true second level of jurisdiction (Article 2 of Protocol   No.   7), of an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and of an infringement of his right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal (Article 6 § 1) resulting from the Milan Court of Appeal’s decision of 20 January 1998; Whereas the applicant did not raise the last of these complaints before the Commission; Whereas the Commission, in decisions of 17 January and 21 May 1997, declared admissible only the complaints relating to the length of the criminal proceedings (Article 6 § 1) and the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1); Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his 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 breaches of Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (a) and (d) and Article 7 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 and ordering the respondent State to pay him just satisfaction by way of compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the breaches of the Convention; 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 the “right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions” set forth in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, while consideration of the other complaints lies outside the Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has declared some of them inadmissible and the applicant raised others for the first time in his application to the Court; 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 or its Protocols, 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 3 June 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 14/1998/917/1129. 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.