SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 41652/98
by Stefano BEGHI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 June 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 April 1998 and registered on 11 June 1998,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1967 and living in Milan. He is represented before the Court by Mr and Mrs Bonzio, lawyers practising in Milan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which he had let to C.P.
In a registered letter of 22 November 1995, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 June 1996 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
On 17 May 1996, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
In a writ served on the tenant on 18 June 1996, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
By a decision of 18 June 1996, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 June 1997.
On 2 July 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
On 9 July 1997, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 18 July 1997, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 September 1997.
Between 15 September 1997 and 16 October 1998 the bailiff made five 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.
On 21 December 1998, after having reached a friendly agreement with the tenant, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the length of the enforcement proceedings was excessive and in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The date originally set for the eviction was 15 September 1997 and the actual eviction took place on 21 December 1998. The applicant thus had to wait one year and three months.
The Court considers that this complaint should be examined in connection with the more general right to a court (see the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 61, ECHR 1999-V).
The right to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 also protects the implementation of final, binding judicial decisions, which, in States that accept the rule of law, cannot remain inoperative to the detriment of one party (see, mutatis mutandis, the Hornsby v. Greece judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 510, § 40). Accordingly, the execution of a judicial decision cannot be unduly delayed. However, a stay of execution of a judicial decision for such period as is strictly necessary to enable a satisfactory solution to be found to public-order problems may be justified in exceptional circumstances (see the Immobiliare Saffi judgment cited above, § 69).
In the present case, the Court notes that the eviction was only delayed for approximately one year and three months. Having in mind the public order problems which Italy admittedly has had to face in the field of housing and in the light of the necessity of protecting the tenant’s interests, the Court does not consider that this delay was so long as to deprive the order for possession issued by the Magistrate of all useful effect or of undermining its substance (see, a contrario, the Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy judgment cited above, § 73).
Further, the Court considers, bearing in mind the practical difficulties raised by the enforcement of a very large number of evictions as well as of the need to protect the tenant’s interests, that the length of the proceedings at issue was not unreasonably long (see, a contrario, the Scollo v. Italy judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A n° 315-C, § 44 in fine).
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy