SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31712/96
by Olga LAMBROCCHI
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,[Note1]
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23 April 1996 and registered on 4 June 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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1966 and living in Milan.
She is represented before the Court by Francesco and Vittorio Romano, two lawyers 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 she had let to G.S.
In a registered letter of 25 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she 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 12 February 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
By a decision of 23 March 1992, which was made enforceable on 26 March 1992, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 23 March 1993.
On 26 March 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 14 April 1993 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 May 1993.
Between 21 May 1993 and 15 December 1998 the bailiff made 20 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment. The applicant further complained about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
On 28 September 1999 the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 26 November 1999. On 6 December the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit his observations by 24 January 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 24 January 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
[Note1]Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy