SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33909/96
by Riccardo FIORANI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 June 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 29 November 1995 and registered on 20 November 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 1946 and living in Rocca Priora (Rome).
He is represented before the Court by Mr Enrico Caroli, 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 he had let to C.C.
In a registered letter of 17 April 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 May 1986 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 18 January 1985, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
By a decision of 11 March 1985, which was made enforceable on 2 April 1985, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1987.
On 3 April 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 27 April 1987 he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 June 1987.
Between 5 June 1987 and 31 January 1989, the bailiff made 8 attempts to recover possession, on 5 June 1987, 17 July 1987, 22 October 1987, 26 November 1987, 19 January 1988, 15 March 1988, 15 November 1988 and 31 January 1989.
On 11 May 1989, the applicant had made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself. On 20 October 1993, he reiterated the declaration.
Between 6 September 1989 and 22 February 1996, the bailiff made 42 attempts to recover possession, on 6 September 1989, 7 November 1989, 14 December 1989, 27 February 1990, 10 April 1990, 12 June 1990, 24 July 1990, 16 October 1990, 27 November 1990, 5 February 1991, 12 March 1991, 14 May 1991, 12 June 1991, 30 July 1991, 12 November 1991, 12 December 1991, 18 February 1992, 12 May 1992, 23 June 1992, 8 September 1992, 15 October 1992, 1 December 1992, 9 February 1993, 23 March 1993, 12 May 1993, 6 July 1993, 28 September 1993, 3 February 1994, 22 March 1994, 3 May 1994, 28 June 1994, 27 September 1994, 15 November 1994, 31 January 1995, 28 March 1995, 30 May 1995, 4 July 1995, 25 July 1995, 7 November 1995, 22 November 1995, 12 December 1995 and 22 February 1996.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
On 24 March 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.
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, ECHR-V.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant 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 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 he had to wait twelve years from the issue of the order for possession before recuperating his apartment, despite the fact that he had made a statutory declaration that he needed the apartment for himself. He considers that this length amounts to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
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