FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 48171/99
by Enrico FOSSI, Andrea FOSSI and Luciano MIGNOLLI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 January 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 introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 March 1999 and registered on 18 May 1999,
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 applicants.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are three Italians national, born respectively in 1949, 1934, 1953 and living in Altopascio (Lucca), Lastra a Signa and Florence.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are the owners of a building of eleven apartments in Florence, six of which had been let to six different tenants. On 10 January 2001, the whole property was transferred to the first applicant.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:
1) Proceedings against G.I.
In a registered letter of 29 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 11 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
By a decision of 14 July 1987, which was made enforceable on 4 January 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1990.
On 19 October 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 11 November 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 December 1993.
Between 9 December 1993 and 16 November 1998, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
At the end of 1998, the applicants recovered possession of the apartment.
2) Proceedings against G.C.
In a registered letter of 29 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 11 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
By a decision of 14 July 1987, which was made enforceable on 31 July 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1992.
On 19 October 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 11 November 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 December 1993.
Between 9 December 1993 and 17 March 1999, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
On 1 August 2000, the applicants entered into a new lease with the tenant’s wife.
3) Proceedings against T.C.
In a registered letter of 29 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 11 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
By a decision of 14 July 1987, which was made enforceable on 31 July 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1992.
On 19 October 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 11 November 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 December 1993.
Between 9 December 1993 and 17 March 1999, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
On 18 September 2001, the applicants had not recovered possession of the apartment.
4) Proceedings against G.S.
In a registered letter of 29 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 11 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
By a decision of 14 July 1987, which was made enforceable on 31 July 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1992.
On 19 October 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 11 November 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 December 1993.
Between 9 December 1993 and 17 March 1999, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
At the beginning of 1999, the applicants recovered possession of the apartment.
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.
THE LAW
The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
The Court has also examined this complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.1.
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. In their opinion, the interference with the applicants’ property rights was not disproportionate; therefore there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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 applicants argue that the refusal of the administration to enforce the order issued by the magistrate has interfered with the power of the judiciary.
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