CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 16 mai 1997

.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 A.Ar. 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 36/1997/820/1023.   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 22 April 1997, and composed of the following judges:            Mr A. Spielmann, Chairman,          Mr C. Russo,          Mr J. De Meyer,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,            Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic dated 4 March 1997 lodged with the Court by an Italian national, Mrs A.Ar., on 13 March 1997;            Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) 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) of the Convention (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d);            Having regard to the Commission's report of 22 October 1996 on the application (no. 29135/95) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Ar. on 26 April 1994;            Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 9 December 1996, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention (art. 31-2);            Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in the Italian civil courts, to which she is a party, and alleged the violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), 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, in spite of a reminder by the registry, the applicant did not specify the object of her application as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B;            Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47, art. 48) and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.        Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 of the          Convention (art. 32-1), for the Court to have jurisdiction to          deal with an application the case must be referred to it          within a period of three months from the date of transmission          of the Commission's report to the Committee of Ministers,          failing which it falls to the Committee of Ministers to          decide whether there has been a violation of the Convention;   2.        Considers that in this case that provision was complied with,          since the Commission's report was transmitted to the          Committee of Ministers on 9 December 1996 and the application          sent to the Court on 4 March 1997, that is before expiry of          the three-month period, as evidenced by the postmark;   3.        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 of               the Convention (art. 6-1); 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 the Convention, the               Committee of Ministers can award the applicant just               satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the               Commission;   4.        Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be          considered by the Court.            Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 16 May 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Alphonse SPIELMANN         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar