FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 46079/99
by Vittoria BIFFONI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 January 1999 and registered on 9 February 1999,
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 1942 and living in Florence. She is represented before the Court by Mr L. Spina, a lawyer practising in Florence.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to R.U.
In a writ served on the tenant on 19 September 1986, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
By a decision of 28 October 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
On 30 May 1989 the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
On 7 July 1989 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 15 September 1989 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 October 1989.
Between 6 October 1989 and 26 June 1998 the bailiff made nineteen 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 23 July 1998, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her inability to recover possession of her apartment amounted to a violation of the right to property.
The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
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. In their opinion, the interference with the applicant’s property rights was not disproportionate.
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.
The applicant argues that the refusal of the administration to enforce the order issued by the magistrate has interfered with the power of the judiciary.
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