FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 60388/00
by Anna Felicia MARIGLIANO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 March 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 lodged on 18 August 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1946 and living in Rome. She is represented before the Court by Mr R. Fiorillo, a lawyer practising in Salerno.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Coperchia (Salerno), which she had let to F.T.
In a registered letter of 12 June 1993, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 August 1994 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 28 June 1993, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Salerno Magistrate. The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
By a decision of 6 June 1993, which was made enforceable on 22 February 1995, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1995.
On 4 March 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 24 March 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 April 1995.
On 3 April 1995, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
On 2 January 1996, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
On 8 January 1997, the applicant asked the Salerno Magistrate to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
On 8 May 1998, the Salerno Magistrate decided to grant the assistance of the police.
Between 16 July 1998 and 27 January 1999, the bailiff made five 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.
Pursuant to law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.
On 20 February 2000, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings and about the denial of her right of access to a court.
The Court has also examined this complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The Government argue that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies on the grounds that she failed to challenge the refusal of police assistance before the administrative courts.
The Court recalls that it has already dismissed this objection in the Immobiliare Saffi case (see the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 40-42, ECHR 1999-V). The Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding. This objection should therefore be rejected.
The Government maintain that the measures in question amount to a control of the use of property which pursues the legitimate aim of avoiding the social tensions and troubles to public order that would occur if a considerable number of orders for possession were to be enforced simultaneously. In their opinion, the interference with the applicant’s property rights was not disproportionate; therefore, there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
As to the length of the enforcement proceedings, the Government submit that the delay in granting police assistance is justified on grounds of the order of priorities established according to public-safety requirements. In any event, the Government stress that following the entry into force of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the Prefect is no longer competent to determine the order of priority for the enforcement of the evictions. The date of enforcement should now be set by the District Court.
The Court considers that the application raises complex and serious issues which require a determination on the merits. It follows that it cannot be considered manifestly ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy