SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32590/96
by Anna BIANCONI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 14 September 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits, Judges,
withMrE. 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 14 June 1996 by Anna Bianconi against Italy and registered on 9 August 1996 under file no. 32590/96;
Having regard to the report 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 1944 and living in Florence.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to T.N. The lease expired on 31 December 1987. In a writ served on the tenant on 17 November 1987, the applicant expressed her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate (pretore).
On 14 December 1987 the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988. The decision was made enforceable on 28 January 1989.
On 10 February 1990 the applicant served a notice (precetto) on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 4 May 1990 she served a notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff (significazione di sfratto) on 15 May 1990.
On 25 January 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration (dichiarazione di urgente necessità) that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her children.
Since 15 May 1990, the bailiff made a number of attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. Subsequently, on 28 November 1997, the tenant vacated the applicant’s apartment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the enforcement proceedings and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the delay in the repossession of her apartment.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
By a letter dated 27 July 1999, the applicant informed the Court that, having recovered possession of her apartment, she does not wish to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention).
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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy