SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 32374/96
by Immacolata & Fara GUIDI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 February 1994 and registered on 22 July 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 applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Italian nationals, born in 1905 and 1919 and living in Naples. They are represented before the Court by Mr Neri D’Aniello, a lawyer practising in Naples.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:
The applicants are the owners of an apartment in S. Agnello, which they had let to A.M.
In a writ served on the tenant on 30 January 1984, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Sorrento Magistrate.
By a decision served of 15 March 1984, the Magistrate refused to uphold the validity of the notice to quit, declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case and indicated that the Naples District Court had jurisdiction to hear it.
On 26 March 1984, the applicants resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court.
In a judgment of 22 June 1988, which was filed with the registry on 19 October 1988, the court allowed the applicants’ claim and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 December 1989.
On 16 December 1988, the tenant appealed to the Naples Court of appeal.
In a judgment of 17 October 1991, which was filed with the registry on 9 November 1991, the court rejected the appeal.
On 5 February 1992, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 2 February 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 March 1993.
As from 15 March 1993 until 16 October 1997, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
On 16 October 1997, 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.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartment.
2. The applicants further complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings
THE LAW
The applicants complain that their inability to recover possession of their apartment amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The applicants further complain 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 ...”
On the merits, 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.
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.
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