SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 32584/96
by Roberto BALDI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 June 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 May 1996 and registered on 9 August 1996,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1947 and living in Milan.
He is represented before the Court by Mr Pietro Marchetti, a lawyer practising in Milan.
A.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which he had let to M.M.L.
In a writ served on the tenant on 25 October 1990, the applicant informed her that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
By a decision of 12 November 1990, which was made enforceable on 7 January 1991, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 July 1992.
On 22 July 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 17 September 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 October 1992.
Between 16 October 1992 and 19 October 1993, the bailiff made 5 attempts to recover possession, on 16 October 1992, 19 January 1993, 20 April 1993, 20 July 1993 and 19 October 1993.
On 26 November 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
Between 11 January 1994 and 14 April 1997, the bailiff made 15 attempts to recover possession, on 11 January 1994, 24 March 1994, 23 June 1994, 18 October 1994, 9 February 1995, 20 April 1995, 11 July 1995, 10 October 1995, 18 January 1996, 28 March 1996, 25 June 1996, 19 December 1996, 4 February 1997 and 14 April 1997.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
On 26 June 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.
B.Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law is described in the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, 28.7.99, §§ 18-35, ECHR-V.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicant complains about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment.
2.The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that his inability to recover possession of his apartment amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings. Article 6 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal ...”
The Government maintain that the measures in question amount to a control of the use of property which pursues the legitimate aim of avoiding the social tensions and troubles to public order that would occur if a considerable number of orders for possession were to be enforced simultaneously.
As to the length of the enforcement proceedings, the Government maintain that the delay in providing the assistance of the police is justified by the protection of the public interest. In any event, the Government stress that following the entry into force of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the Prefect is no longer competent to determine the order of priority for the enforcement of the evictions. The date of enforcement should now be set by the District Court.
The applicant argues that almost seven years delay in the enforcement of the order issued by the Milan Magistrate violates his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
The Court considers that the application raises complex and serious issues which require a determination on the merits. It follows that it cannot be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy