CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 15 janvier 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 Casanica 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 98/1996/717/914.   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 November 1996, 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 lodged with the Court on 19 August 1996 by an Italian national, Mr Pier Luigi Casanica, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47);        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 16 April 1996 on the application (no. 27182/95) lodged with the Commission by Mr Casanica on 27 August 1994;        Whereas the applicant complained of the length of two sets of proceedings in the Italian civil courts, the first brought by him and the second concerning his personal bankruptcy, and alleged a breach of (i) Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) (because there had been a denial of justice on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings in question and no fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal); (ii) Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention (art. 8, art. 14) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) (because delay in completing the bankruptcy measures had infringed his right to freedom of correspondence, his right to liberty of movement within the territory of his State and his right to choose his residence there freely; (iii) Article 13 of the Convention (art. 13) (because Italian law did not provide an effective remedy in the domestic courts in respect of a complaint about the length of proceedings; (iv) Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention (art. 5, art. 10) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (because his right to purchase property, his civic rights and his right to liberty had been infringed); and (v) Article 6 para. 3 of the Convention (art. 6-3) (which provision was applicable, by analogy, in civil cases, because he had not been able to contest the decisions taken against him);        Whereas the applicant did not raise the complaints concerning Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) (fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) before the Commission, which, on 23 January 1996, declared the complaints relating to Articles 6 para. 1 (reasonable time), 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention (art. 6-1, art. 8, art. 13, art. 14) admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;        Whereas the complaint relating to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention (art. 8, art. 14), as examined by the Commission in its decision on admissibility, in actual fact concerns Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2);        Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been breaches of Articles 5, 6 paras. 1 and 3, 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention (art. 5, art. 6-1, art. 6-3, art. 8, art. 10, art. 13, art. 14), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) and ordering the respondent State to pay him compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained on account of the length of the proceedings and to reimburse the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Convention institutions;        Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) 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 (i) the fundamental requirements of      Article 13 of the Convention (art. 13), (ii) the "reasonable      time" requirement in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention      (art. 6-1) and (iii) the requirements of Articles 8 and 14 of the      Convention (art. 8, art. 14) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4      (P4-2), particularly with regard to the possible consequences of      the length of proceedings for the rights guaranteed by these      provisions (art. 8, art. 14, P4-2);     (b) consideration of the remainder of the application lies outside      its jurisdiction, as the applicant raised the complaint relating      to the unfairness of the proceedings and the domestic court's      lack of independence and impartiality for the first time in his      application to the Court and as the Commission has declared the      other complaints inadmissible; and     (c) 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 15 January 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Alphonse SPIELMANN         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar