FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42356/98
by Gilda GUIDO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 11 June 1998 and registered on 22 July 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1945 and living in Naples. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. d’Alessandro, a lawyer practising in Naples.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:
R.G., the applicant’s father, was the owner of an apartment in Naples, which he had let to P.C.
In a writ served on the tenant on 9 October 1986, R.G. informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
By a decision of 7 June 1988, which was made enforceable on 29 October 1988, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1989.
On 9 December 1988, R.G. served a notice to quit within ten days on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
Between 8 March 1991 and 26 October 1993 the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant’s father was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
In the meanwhile, R.G. died. His daughter (the applicant) decided to pursue the enforcement proceedings.
On 22 June 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 31 August 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
On 9 September 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 September 1995.
Between 21 September 1995 and 20 January 1998, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
On an unspecified date of April 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about her prolonged inability 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 23 May 2001, the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 14 August 2001. On 25 July 2001, the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit his observations by 3 October 2001. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 5 November 2001, the Registry of the Court reminded the applicant’s lawyer that the deadline for submitting observations had expired on 3 October 2001 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 9 November 2001, 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