CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 12 décembre 1995

.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 Cicely and Others v. Italy (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 54/1995/560/645.   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 27 September and 22 November 1995, and composed of the following judges:           Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,         Mr F. Gölcüklü,         Mr C. Russo,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,           Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court on 2 June 1995 by Mr Burlamacchi, acting on behalf of Mrs Juliet Cicely (a United Kingdom national) and the other heirs (of United Kingdom and New Zealand nationality) of a Mr S., within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention;           Whereas Italy 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 the Government of the respondent State or that of the Contracting State of which some of the applicants are nationals or the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a), (b) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-b, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;           Having regard to the Commission's report of 17 January 1995 on the application (no. 22527/93), lodged with the Commission by the applicants on 9 December 1992;           Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian civil courts, to which they are parties, 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 ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...";           Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that they sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings in issue and ordering the respondent State to pay them compensation for the considerable damage they had allegedly sustained through the failure to comply with the "reasonable time" requirement and an error made by one of the judges dealing with the case;           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; 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 applicants         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 December 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar