CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 21 octobre 1996

.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 Eugénio da Conceição v. Portugal (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 96/1996/715/912.   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 25 September 1996, and composed of the following judges:         Mr R. Macdonald, Chairman,       Mr C. Russo,       Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,         Having regard to the application against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court on 7 August 1996 by a Portuguese national, Mr Alberto Eugénio da Conceição, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention;         Whereas Portugal has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 (art. 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 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;         Having regard to the Commission's report of 11 April 1996 on the application (no. 24099/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr Eugénio da Conceição on 21 April 1994;         Whereas the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of proceedings in the Portuguese civil courts, to which he was a party, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...", and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), which guarantees every natural or legal person the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions;         Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, criticised the way the Commission had classified his complaints and stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been a breach of both Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1+P1-1) of the Convention and of the latter provision taken separately in respect of the requirements relating to reasonable time and a fair hearing;         Whereas the Commission, in its decision of 29 November 1995 on the admissibility of the application, declared the complaints admissible, taking them as a whole in relation to the length of the proceedings;         Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention 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 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, on respect for       the right of property, guaranteed by Article 1 of       Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), and in particular on the way this last       right could be affected by protracted proceedings; 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 21 October 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Ronald MACDONALD       Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD       Registrar