FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40225/98
by Ida LORDI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 February 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 May 1997 and registered on 13 March 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 1943 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.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to B. D.
In a writ of 5 April 1991, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned him to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
By a decision of 22 April 1991, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit but ruled that the case was to be resumed before the Naples District Court to be decided on the merits.
By a writ served on 1 June 1991, the applicant summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples District Court. By a judgment of 2 December 1992, which was filed in the registry on 17 December 1992, the latter upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1993.
On 6 October 1993, the applicant served a notice on the tenant, requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 27 November 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 December 1993.
Between 6 December 1993 and 11 November 1997, the bailiff made nine 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 May 1998, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 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 18 July 2001. On 19 July 2001, the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit his observations by 27 September 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 27 September 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