Information Note on the Court’s case-law 21
August 2000
G.L. v. Italy - 22671/93
Judgment 3.8.2000 [Section II]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Staggering of the granting of police assistance to enforce eviction order: violation
Article 6
Article 6-1
Access to court
Absence of possibility of court review of prefectoral decisions staggering the granting of police assistance in enforcement of eviction orders: violation
Facts: In 1988 the applicant obtained an eviction order against the tenant of an apartment which he owns. The judge made the order enforceable from 1 September 1989. However, as a result of legislation providing for the staggering of evictions, he was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the eviction order. Consequently, attempts by a bailiff to recover possession of the apartment were unsuccessful. In 1993 the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises for his son. However, numerous further attempts by the bailiff were unsuccessful. The tenant vacated the premises spontaneously in 1997.
Law: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The interference amounted to a control of the use of property and had a legitimate aim in the general interest. However, while the staggering system is not in itself open to criticism, it must provide certain procedural safeguards to ensure that its operation is not arbitrary or unforeseeable. In this case, despite being entitled to priority for police assistance from 1993, the applicant was only able to recover possession three years and five months later when the tenant left of his own accord. For six years and three months the applicant was left in a state of uncertainty. Until 1993 he was not able to apply to the judge or the administrative court to have the denial of police assistance set aside, since the prefect’s decision in that respect was entirely legitimate, and thereafter he had no prospects of accelerating the grant of police assistance, which depended on availability of policemen. Moreover, he had no prospects of obtaining compensation through the courts. Consequently, an excessive burden was imposed on him.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 1 – The Court has already held in the Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy judgment that this provision applies to the procedure for eviction of tenants. While a stay of execution of a judicial decision may be justified in exceptional circumstances, the case does not concern an isolated refusal by the prefect to provide police assistance; rather, the enforcement of the order was stayed after 1 January 1990 as a result of the intervention of the legislature, which reopened and rendered nugatory the judge’s decision as to the date by which the tenant had to vacate the premises. The legislature conferred a power on prefects to intervene systematically in the enforcement of eviction orders and the assessment of whether it was appropriate to stay enforcement was not subject to any effective review by the courts. The applicant was thus deprived of his right to have the dispute decided by a court. His complaint concerning the length of the proceedings is absorbed by that complaint.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 47,600,000 lire (ITL) in respect of pecuniary damage and 20 million lire in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded 1,135,670 lire in respect of costs and epxenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy