SECOND SECTION
DECISION[Note1]
Application no. 30273/96
by A.C.
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 9 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 22 November 1995 by A.C. against Italy and registered on 22 February 1996 under file no. 30273/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1940 and living in Livorno.
He is represented before the Court by Mr Nino Amadei, a lawyer practising in Livorno.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Livorno, which he had let to C.B.
In a writ served on the tenant on 1 December 1989, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.
By a decision of 11 December 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 September 1990. On 29 October 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 19 December 1990, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 January 1991.
On 16 October 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
Between 22 January 1991 and 10 May 1996, the bailiff made 8 attempts to recover possession, on 22 January 1991, 15 October 1991, 16 October 1992, 15 October 1993, 14 June 1994, 13 December 1994, 15 December 1995 and 10 May 1996. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
By a letter dated 16 July 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicant’s lawyer to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 27 October 1999, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for updated information and warned the applicant’s lawyer that, should such information not be received before 24 November 1999, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 8 November 1999, did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 c) of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in his application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Do not forget to block text with Alt+B in order to avoid that the information in the highlighted zones disappears.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy