SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30422/96
by Franca FANTOZZI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 20 January 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 Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 5 March 1996 by Franca Fantozzi against Italy and registered on 9 April 1996 under file no. 30422/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1951 and living in Ravenna. She is represented before the Court by Mr Enrico Crocetti, a lawyer practising in Ravenna.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Ravenna, which she had let to D.N.
In a writ served on the tenant on 4 January 1994, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Ravenna Magistrate. By a decision of 20 January 1994, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Ravenna Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 19 July 1994.
On 27 July 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises and subsequently informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 October 1994.
On 20 October 1994 and again on 30 November 1994, the bailiff attempted to recover possession of the apartment, but to no avail as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance 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 20 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. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 5 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 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