FIRST SECTION
CASE OF CAVICCHI AND RUGGERI v. ITALY
(Application no. 56717/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 October 2003
FINAL
30/01/2004
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Cavicchi and Ruggeri v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 October 2003,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 56717/00) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Italian nationals, Mr Stefano Cavicchi, Mr Renzo Cavicchi and Mrs Maria Ruggeri (“the applicants”), on 3 December 1999.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr F. Pietrini, a lawyer practising in Florence. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr U. Leanza and by their successive co-agents, respectively Mr V. Esposito and Mr F. Crisafulli.
3. On 31 January 2002 the Court declared the application admissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were respectively born in 1962, 1932 and 1934 and live in Florence.
5. They are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to P.V.
6. In a registered letter of 25 July 1983, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1984 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7. In a writ served on the tenant on 24 April 1984, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8. By a decision of 11 May 1984, which was made enforceable on 13 June 1984, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 11 May 1985.
9. The tenant asked the Florence Magistrate that the enforcement be postponed.
10. On 21 June 1985, the Florence Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1986.
11. On 5 June 1986, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12. On 23 June 1986, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 September 1986.
13. Between 3 September 1986 and 16 December 1998, the bailiff made thirty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14. On 12 July 1999, pursuant to article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Florence District Court to suspend the eviction proceedings.
15. On 9 April 2001, the tenant died and his son refused to leave the flat.
16. On 11 May 2001, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. The next attempt was deferred to 16 October 2001.
17. Between 16 October 2001 and 21 November 2002, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18. On 3 March 2003, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
19. Since 1947 the public authorities in Italy have frequently intervened in residential tenancy legislation with the aim of controlling rents. This has been achieved by rent freezes (occasionally relaxed when the Government decreed statutory increases), by the statutory extension of all current leases and by the postponement, suspension or staggering of the enforcement of orders for possession. The relevant domestic law concerning the extension of tenancies, the suspension of enforcement and the staggering of evictions is described in the Court's judgment in the case of Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 18-35, ECHR 1999-V.
A. The system of control of the rents
20. As regards the control of the rents, the evolution of the Italian legislation may be summarised as follows.
21. The first relevant measure was the Law no. 392 of 27 July 1978 which provided machinery for “fair rents” (the so-called equo canone) on the basis of a number of criteria such as the surface of the flat and its costs of realisation.
22. The second step of the Italian authorities dated August 1992. It was taken in the view of progressive liberalisation of the market of tenancies. Accordingly, a legislation relaxing on rent levels restrictions (the so-called patti in deroga) entered into force. Owners and tenants were in principle given the opportunity to derogate from the rent imposed by law and to agree on a different price.
23. Lastly, Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998 reformed the tenancies and liberalised the rents.
B. Obligations of the tenant in the case of late restitution
24. The tenant is under a general obligation to refund the owner any damages caused in the case of late restitution of the flat. In this regard, Article 1591 of the Italian Civil Code provides:
“The tenant who fails to vacate the immovable property is under an obligation to pay the owner the agreed amount until the date when he leaves, together with other remaining damages.”
25. However, Law no. 61 of 1989 set out, inter alia, a limit to the compensation claimable by the owner entitling him to a sum equal to the rent paid by the tenant at the time of the expiration of the lease, proportionally increased according to the cost of living (Article 24 of Law no. 392 of 27 July 1978) plus 20%, along the period of inability to dispose of the possession of the flat.
26. In the judgment no. 482 of 2000, the Constitutional Court was called upon to decide whether such a limitation complied with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court held that it was compatible with the Constitution with regard to periods of time during which the suspension of the evictions was determined by law. The Constitutional Court explained that the introduction of that limitation was intended to settle the tenancies of the time of the emergency legislation, when the housing shortage made the suspension of the enforcement necessary. While evictions were suspended ex lege, the law predetermined the quantum of the reimbursement chargeable to the tenant, both measures being temporary and exceptional. Besides, the interests of the owner were counterbalanced by the exemption for him from the burden to prove the damages.
27. The Constitutional Court declared the limitation to the compensation claimable by the owner unconstitutional with regard to cases where the impossibility for the owner to repossess the flat depended on the conduct of the tenant and was not due to a legislative intervention. Accordingly, it opened the way to owners for the institution of civil proceedings in order to obtain full reparation of the damages caused by the tenant.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 AND OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
28. The applicants complained of their prolonged inability to recover possession of their flat, owing to the lack of police assistance. They alleged a violation of their right of property, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
29. The applicants also alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
30. The Court has previously examined a number of cases raising issues similar to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi, cited above, §§ 46-75; Lunari v. Italy, no. 21463/93, §§ 34-46, 11 January 2001; Palumbo v. Italy, no. 15919/89, §§ 33-48, 30 November 2000).
31. The Court has examined the present case and finds that there are no facts or arguments from the Government which would lead to any different conclusion in this instance. It notes that the applicants had to wait approximately sixteen years and six months after the first access of the bailiff before being able to repossess the flat.
Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
32. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary damage
33. The applicants sought, firstly, reparation for the pecuniary damage they had sustained, which they calculated as follows: 500,000 Italian lire (ITL) [258,23 euros (EUR)] per month plus interests for a period of time from August 1992 to March 2003, the sum being the loss of rent as the difference between the market value rent – as estimated on the basis of two offers they received in 1993 and in 1996 – and the rent imposed by law.
34. The Government contested the claim.
35. The Court considers that the applicants must be awarded compensation for the pecuniary damage resulting from the loss of rent for the period of time related to the violations found.
Having regard to the means of calculation proposed by the applicants and in the light of the evidence before it and the period concerned, it decides to award them EUR 32,793 (EUR 10,931 for each applicant) under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
36. The applicants claimed ITL 35,000,000 [EUR 18,075.99] for the non-pecuniary damage.
37. The Government contested the claim.
38. The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards each of them EUR 3,000 under this head.
C. Costs and expenses
39. The applicants also claimed EUR 15,816.60 for their costs and expenses before the Court.
40. The Government did not make any submissions on that point.
41. On the basis of the information in its possession and the Court's case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sum of EUR 2,100 (EUR 700 for each applicant) under this head.
D. Default interest
42. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 10,931 (ten thousand nine hundred thirty-one euros) for pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 700 (seven hundred euros) for legal costs and expenses;
(iv) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 October 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy