SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33529/96
by Elena Maria de LEONARDIS
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 11 July 1996 and registered on 25 October 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1929 and living in Rome.
She is represented before the Court by Mr Emanuele Bracaglia, a lawyer practising in Rome.
A.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to E.M.
In a registered letter of 6 May 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 1 January 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
On 8 May 1991, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
In a writ served on the tenant on 17 March 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
On 30 June 1992, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1993. That decision was made enforceable on 14 July 1992.
On 24 June 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 15 July 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 July 1993.
Between 30 July 1993 and 6 July 1999 the bailiff made 28 attempts to recover possession, on 30 July 1993, 26 November 1993, 17 March 1994, 21 July 1994, 22 November 1994, 22 February 1995, 26 May 1995, 20 September 1995, 15 December 1995, 20 March 1996, 23 July 1996, 11 October 1996, 10 December 1996, 11 February 1997, 26 June 1997, 23 September 1997, 24 October 1997, 27 November 1997, 5 March 1998, 2 April 1998, 7 May 1998, 5 June 1998, 30 June 1998, 22 October 1998, 23 October 1998, 24 November 1998, 26 January 1999 and 6 July 1999.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
In September 1999, the tenant died and the applicant repossessed the apartment.
B.Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law is described in the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, 28.7.99, §§ 18-35.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment.
The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that her inability to recover possession of her apartment amounted to a violation of her right of property, as embodied in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, 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.”
The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings. Article 6 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal ...”
The Government maintain that the measures in question amount to a control of the use of property which pursues the legitimate aim of avoiding the social tensions and troubles to public order that would occur if a considerable number of orders for possession were to be enforced simultaneously.
The applicant argues that the Government has sacrificed the interests of landlords to the general interest. He further argues that the tenant’s economic conditions were better than his.
As to the length of the enforcement proceedings, the Government maintain that the delay in providing the assistance of the police is justified by the protection of the public interest. In any event, the Government stress that following the entry into force of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the Prefect is no longer competent to determine the order of priority for the enforcement of the evictions. The date of enforcement should now be set by the District Court.
The applicant argues that the delay in the enforcement of the order issued by the Milan Magistrate is due to the incapacity of the Italian State to apply its legislation.
The Court considers that the application raises complex and serious issues which require a determination on the merits. It follows that it cannot be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy