FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 59453/00
by Giulio FONTANA GIUSTI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 May 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 12 July 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1946 and living in Rome. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Carnevali, a lawyer practising in Rome.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s mother was the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to L.R.B.
In a writ served on the tenant on 22 June 1985, the applicant’s mother informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
By a decision of 16 November 1985, 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 November 1988.
On 18 January 1990, the applicant’s mother served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 23 February 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 April 1990.
Between 10 April 1990 and 11 October 2000, the bailiff made forty-four attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant’s mother and then the applicant were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
In the meanwhile, on 31 January 1992, the applicant’s mother died and the applicant inherited the apartment.
On 8 May 1998, the applicant became party in the national proceedings.
On 8 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
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.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
On 16 November 2001 the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 18 January 2002. On 28 January 2002, the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit his observations by 11 March 2002.
Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 26 March 2002, the Registry of the Court renewed its request and warned the applicant’s lawyer that should the observations not be received before 24 April 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 3 April 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