SECOND SECTION
DECISION[Note1]
Application no. 33416/96
by Luigi CARRA’ and Adalgisa PAGANI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 20 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Levits, 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 25 July 1996 by Luigi Carra’ and Adalgisa Pagani against Italy and registered on 10 October 1996 under file no. 33416/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Italian nationals, born in 1938 and 1942, living in Milan.
They are represented before the Court by Mrs Liana Solimena, a lawyer practising in Milan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Milan, which they had let to R.M.
In a writ served on the tenant on 22 April 1983, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
By a decision of 28 April 1983, which was made enforceable on 26 November 1983, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1984.
On 23 April 1986, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On an unspecified date, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff.
The bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
On 1 February 1995, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
By a letter dated 21 July 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicants’ lawyer to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 9 November 1999, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for updated information and warned the applicants’ lawyer that, should such information not be received before 7 December 1999, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicants’ lawyer, who received the said letter on 17 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
[Note1]Do not forget to block text with Alt+B in order to avoid that the information in the highlighted zones disappears.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy