SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31015/96
by Helene DANESI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 March 2000 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 the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 8 March 1996 and registered on 15 April 1996,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1971 and living in Rome
She is represented before the Court by Mr Guglielmo Martignetti, a lawyer 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 she had let to M.P.
In a writ served on the tenant on 9 January 1991, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. By a decision of 8 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 June 1992.
On 19 November 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On an unspecified date, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 January 1994. On 23 March 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
Between 19 January 1994 and 8 May 1996, the bailiff made several 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.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her 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 lawyer 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 lawyer that, should such information not be received before 24 November 1999, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. Having received no receipt of the registered letter, on 8 February 2000 the Registry of the Court reiterated its request by fax. The applicant’s lawyer 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 her 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