FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41709/98
by Maria GROSSO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 June 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 with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 March 1998,
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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1924 and living in Naples. She is represented before the Court by Mr E. Baldi, a lawyer practising in Naples.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to A.C.
In a writ of 12 September 1986, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. The applicant summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
By a decision of 24 April 1988, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1989.
At the hearing of 30 January 1990, the tenant opposed alleging the expiry of the lease on another date.
In 1995, the Naples Tribunal rejected the tenant’s appeal.
On 22 September 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 3 November 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 November 1995.
Between 21 November 1995 and 12 September 1997, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
On 1 October 2001, the applicant had not recovered possession of the apartment.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her 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 to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. 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 9 April 2002, the Registry of the Court renewed its request and warned the applicant’s lawyer that should the observations not be received before 10 May 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 15 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 her 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