FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 57962/00
by Francesco BARTOLO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights First Section, sitting on 5 September 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 July 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1913 and living in Salerno. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Chiariello, a lawyer practising in Salerno.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Salerno, which he had let to P.S.
In a writ served on the tenant on 20 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Salerno Magistrate.
By a decision of 9 July 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
On 13 January 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 27 January 1993 he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 March 1993.
On 24 March 1993, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession. That attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
On the same date, the applicant asked the Salerno Magistrate for the assistance of the police to enforce the order of possession and declared that without that assistance, the bailiff would not try any attempt to recover possession.
On 3 February 1998, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.
Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Salerno District Court to set a new date for the enforcement of the order for possession.
On 6 July 1999, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 October 1999.
On 21 October 1999, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession.
That attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. A second attempt was set for 26 January 2000.
On 26 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment.
2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
On 14 December 2001, the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 22 February 2002. On 1 March 2002, the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit his observations by 12 April 2002.
Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 7 May 2002, the Registry of the Court renewed its request and warned the applicant’s lawyer that should the observations not be received before 7 June 2002 and no extension of the time-limit having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 20 May 2002, did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in his application. Furthermore, 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