SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31014/96
by Ennio CAROLA
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 9 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. 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 7 March 1996 by Ennio Carola against Italy and registered on 15 April 1996 under file no. 31014/96;
Having regard to the reports 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 1923 and living in Rome.
He is represented before the Court by Mrs Maria Martignetti and Mr Guglielmo Martignetti, lawyers practising in Rome.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to L.L.
In a writ served on the tenant on 8 January 1988, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
By a decision of 5 May 1988, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 June 1992. On 8 June 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On an unspecified date, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 July 1992.
Between 21 July 1992 and 2 December 1993, the bailiff made 9 attempts to recover possession, on 21 July 1992, 30 September 1992, 18 November 1992, 2 February 1993, 16 March 1993, 11 May 1993, 2 July 1993, 12 October 1993 and 2 December 1993. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession
On 11 February 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his children.
Between 16 February 1994 and 5 December 1995, the bailiff made 10 attempts to recover possession, on 16 February 1994, 13 April 1994, 2 June 1994, 20 September 1994, 3 November 1994, 14 March 1995, 12 May 1995, 13 July 1995, 3 October 1995 and 5 December 1995. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
By a letter dated 16 July 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicant’s lawyers to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 27 October 1999, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for updated information and warned the applicant’s lawyers that, should such information not be received before 24 November 1999, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyers, who received the said letter on 8 November 1999, did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 c) of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in his application. Furthermore, 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