(TRANSIrITION) THE FACTS The applicant, Pasquale Minniti, is an Italian national, who was born on 5 May 1933 at Reggio Calabria, Italy, where he now resides. In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Clemente Corigllano, a laviyer practising at Reggio Calabria . On 2. August 1968 the applicant was the victitn of an industrial accident . He received an injury to the scalp following a collision with a lorry . His injury was diagnosed as reqtiiring 10 days to heal and, this diagnusis was confirmedby :m X-ray carriecl out on 14 August 1968 . 'rhe X-ray revealed no structural alteraticnof the skull and no sign of increased skull pressure . The applicant claims that ttie shock brought about a deterioration in his mental state, causing him permanent invalidity of more than 70'iô . On this basis the applicant asked the national instittrtion which âdministers the industrial accident insurance scheine ("Istituto Naziotiale per l'A .ssicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro", hereinafter referred to as "the National Insurancr. Institution") . to pay him the pension to which he considered he was entitled . 7'o this end, on 8 Murch 1972, the applicani breught an action against the National Insuranze Instimtion in the Reggio Calabria District Court (Labour Law Division). 63 The Court ordered an expert medical opinion on a date which has-not been specified . The resulting report, which was submitted on a date which again has not been specified, established that the "schizophrenic syndrome from which the applicant suffered could not be regarded as the consequence of a post-traumatic deterioration of his pre-existing paranoia" . The Court took the view that consequently the conditions laid down by law,for obtaining a pension were not satisfied and dismissed the applicant's application as unfounded by judgment of 12 November 1975, which was filed with the registry on 9 January 1976. The applicant appealed to the Reggio Calabria Court of Appeal on 9 June 1976 . The Court of Appeal upheld the Reggio Calabria District Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal by judgment of 23 February, file,d on 10 April 1978 . On 27 June 1978 the applicant appealed against this judgment to the Court of Cassation . He alleged that it infringed the law inasmuch as the Court of Appeal had not stated its reasons for refusing a second expert opinion in the appeal proceedings and the statement of grounds was inadequate. On 27 October 1982 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal . The judgment delivered on the same day was filed with the court registry on 29 March 1983 . The pension sought by the applicant is awarded on the basis of contributions - or insurance premiums - paid by the employer on behalf of his employees . The amount of this contribution is calculated for each industrial sector by reference to the number of industrial accidents and the cases of occupationaldisease and the employee's annual salary . Entitlement to a pension is therefore acquired by virtue of a contribution paid by the employer under the terms of the employment contract . COMPLAINTS The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the ground of the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings . In addition he complains that the Court of Cassation's judgment was not delivered publicly . THE LAW 1 . The applicant complains of the length of civil proceedings instituted in the Reggio Calabria District Court . Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention provides that "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations . . . everyone is entitled to a . . . hearing within a reasonable time by (a) . . . tribunal" . The Commission finds that in the Italian courts the applicant was seeking recognition of his right to an invalidity pension . It notes in the first place that the 64 invalidity pension in question is'awarded following an industrial accident or occupational disease on the basis ofcontributions - or insurance premiums - paid by the employer on behalf of his employees . Such insurance is grafted onto the emphoyment contract, itself governed by private law, and fuerePore constimte.s one of the terms of the employment contract between empleyer and employee. Although administered by a public law institution, it is thus similar to insurance urider the ordinary l-.w. The Commission therefore takes the view that in tb.ese cireumstances entir.lement to a pension may beregarded as a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention and that the applicant is entitled to rely on the guarantees laid down i,n this article in proceeclings concerning this right . On this point t refers to the decision of the European Cnurt of Human Rights in the cases Feldbrugge and Deumeland (Eur. Court H .R., Feldbrugge judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no . 99 and Deumeland judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no . 100) .Moreover,a ; regards the length of the proceedirgs in question the Commission observes that the first inslance proceedings, instittited on 8 March 197'1., were concluded by ajudgment delivered on 12 November L975, which was filed with the court registry on 9 January 1976 . They thus lasted [hrée years and eight nionths . The applicant appealed against this judgment six months later, on 9 June 19'76 . The proceedings in the Court of AppeaP. were concluded by a judgmenr of 23 February 1978, which was filed with the registry on IC April 1978. The second instance proceedirigs therefore covered a period of one year and ten months . Ttte applicant appealed to the . Court of Cassation . The judgment of the Court of Cassation delivered on 27 October 1982 was filed with the court registry on 5 Marcii 1983 . The proceedings in the Court of Cassation therefore extended over a period of approximately four years and eleven months The Commission considers that the period to be taken inte consideration (lid not begin until 1 August 1973 when Italy's recognition of the right of individual petition took effect . Nevertheless, in assessing the reasonableness of the period following 31 July 1973, it wi!l take into account the stage which the proceedings had reached on that date (see Eur . Court H . R., Foti and others judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A nc . 56, para. 5) . Furthermore. the period to be taken into consideration ended on the date on which the Court of Cassatiou's judgment was filed viith die registry of that court, because it was on that date that the outcoine of the appeal becaine known . Thus, for the purposes of the . Commission's examiration, Ihe proceedings in question covered a period of approximatebi nine years and four months . The Cotnmission considers that the applicant's complaints eoneerning the excessive length o f ~65 the proceedings cannot be regarded as manifestly ill-founded at this stage of the examination of the application and raise complex questions which require an examination as to the merits . The Comtnission finds in addition that there are no other grounds for declaring this complaint inadmissible . 2 . The applicant also complains that the Court of Cassation's judgment was not delivered in public and relies in that respeet on Article 6 para . I of the Convention . According to the terms of this provision "judgment shall be pronounced publicly" . The Commission observes in the first place that the judgments of the Italian Court of Cassation are made public by filing with the court registry . The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that such a procedure of publicising judgments corresponds to the aim and requirements of Article 6 para . I of the Convention (Eur . Court H .R., Pretto judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71) . It follows that the applicant's complaint in this respect is manifestly ill-founde d and must be dismissed in accordance with Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES ADMISSIBLE without prejudging the merits of the case, the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings ; DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application . 66