SECOND SECTION
DECISION[Note1]
Application no. 31483/96
by Guido TOYA’s Heirs
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 20 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 3 May 1996 by Guido Toya and others against Italy and registered on 14 May 1996 under file no. 31483/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Italian nationals living in Milan. They are represented before the Court by Mr Giuseppe Mauceri, a lawyer practising in Melegnano.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1)Proceedings against L.S.
The applicants inherited an apartment in Milan, which they had let to A.B and was later occupied, upon the latter’s death, by his wife, Mrs L.S..
In a writ served on Mrs L.S. on 11 January 1988, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Milan Magistrate. By a decision of 28 January 1988, which was made enforceable on 17 February 1988, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 28 January 1989. On 9 October 1989, the applicants served notice on Mrs L.S. requiring her to vacate the premises and on 17 October 1989 they informed her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 November 1989.
Between 10 November 1989 and 20 June 1996 the bailiff made numerous attempts to recover possession of the apartment; each attempt however 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.
2)Proceedings against M.C.
The applicants inherited an apartment in Milan, which had been let to M.C.
In a writ served on the tenant on 12 July 1990, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. By a decision of 24 September 1990, which was made enforceable on 10 October 1990, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 24 September 1991. On 30 September 1991, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises and on 14 October 1991 they informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 November 1991.
Between 22 November 1991 and 20 June 1996, the bailiff made numerous attempts to recover possession of the apartment. Each attempt however 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.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants. complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
By a letter dated 12 July 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicants’ lawyer to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 29 October 1999, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for updated information and warned the applicants’ lawyer that, should such information not be received before 26 November 1999, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicants’ lawyer, who received the said letter on 9 November 1999, 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 applicants have lost interest in their 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
[Note1]Do not forget to block text with Alt+B in order to avoid that the information in the highlighted zones disappears.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy