FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 63515/00
by Luciano DI STEFANO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 July 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 lodged on 13 November 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1945 and living in Rome. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Gianluigi, a lawyer practising in Rome.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to D.M.
In a writ served on the tenant on 27 September 1990, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. He summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
By a decision of 14 February 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1992.
On 21 October 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 8 October 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
On 23 November 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 January 1993.
Between 13 January 1993 and 13 December 2000, the bailiff made forty-six 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 30 January 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment.
2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings and about the denial of his right of access to a court.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
On 11 January 2002, the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 8 March 2002. On 12 March 2002, the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit his observations by 23 April 2002.
Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 7 May 2002, the Registry of the Court renewed its request and warned the applicant’s lawyer that should the observations not be received before 7 June 2002 and no extension of the time-limit having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 21 May 2002, did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in his application. Furthermore, 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