SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34453/97
by L.D.F.
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA. Kovler, judges,[Note1]
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 October 1996 and registered on 10 January 1997,
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 1946 and living in Segrate. He is represented before the Court by Mr Aldo Politi and Mrs Cristina Gramola, lawyers practising in Milan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which he had let to V.M.
In a registered letter of 5 July 1990, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 28 March 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 4 December 1990, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. By a decision of 17 April 1991, which was made enforceable on 13 May 1991, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 March 1992.
On 14 February 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 6 March 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 March 1992.
Between 25 March 1992 and 10 July 1996, the bailiff made 18 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.
On 31 October 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
On 9 December 1999 the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 10 February 2000. On 16 February 2000 the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyers, who were invited to submit their observations by 29 March 2000. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 25 May 2000 the Registry of the Court reminded the applicant’s lawyers that the deadline for submitting observations had expired on 29 March 2000 and warned them that, no extension of the time-limit having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyers, who received the said letter on 1 June 2000, 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 his 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
[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