SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31655/96
by G.T.
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 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 3 May 1996 and registered on 30 May 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 1940 and living in Milan.
He is represented before the Court by Giuseppe Mauceri, a lawyer practising in Milan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which he had let to G.M.
In a registered letter of 9 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he 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 27 November 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
By a decision of 8 February 1990, which was made enforceable on 19 February 1990, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1991.
On 2 June 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 25 June 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 July 1992.
Between 18 July 1992 and 18 July 1999 the bailiff made 25 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of eviction, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment. He further complained about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
On 2 December 1999 the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 3 February 2000. On 8 February 2000 the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit his observations by 21 March 2000. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 6 April 2000 the Registry of the Court reminded the applicant’s lawyer that the deadline for submitting observations had expired on 21 March 2000 and warned him that, no extension of time having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the letter on 12 April 2000, did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in her application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, 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