SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 31922/96
by Teresa MICUCCI and 2 Others
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 April 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 April 1996 and registered on 17 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Italian nationals living in Turin. The second applicant is the son of the first applicant. The third applicant is the girlfriend of the second applicant.
They are represented before the Court by Mr Paolo Garetto, a lawyer practising in Turin.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The first applicant is the owner of an apartment in Turin, which she had let to A.M.M.
In a writ served on the tenant on 18 September 1990, she communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.
On 22 November 1990, the tenant failed to appear before the court and the first applicant asked the Magistrate to continue the proceedings in the ordinary way.
In a judgment of 31 March 1992, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 7 April 1992, the Magistrate allowed the first applicant’s claim and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1993.
On 19 January 1993, the first applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for the second applicant, who planned to marry the third applicant.
On 15 April 1993, the Turin Magistrate judgment was made enforceable.
On 3 June 1993, the first applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 8 June 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 July 1993.
Between 13 July 1993 and 8 May 1998, the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession, on 13 July 1993, 19 October 1993, 14 October 1994, 13 June 1995, 22 September 1995, 26 January 1996, 15 May 1996, 30 September 1996, 21 January 1997, 20 May 1997, 14 October 1997, 20 January 1998, 8 May 1998.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the first applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicants complain about the first applicant’s prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of the first applicant’s apartment.
2.The applicants further complain about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants complain about the prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of the first applicant’s apartment. They further complain about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
In so far as the first applicant is concerned, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government.
As regards the second and the third applicants, the Court recalls that, pursuant Article 34 of the Convention, individuals applying to the Court must allege to be “victims” of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention or in the Protocols thereto.
In the present case the Court observes that the second and the third applicants have no title over the apartment. It is true that the first applicant had made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for the second applicant, who planned to marry the third applicant. However, such a declaration does not empower the designated beneficiaries of the apartment to claim any title over it, nor does it make them parties to the enforcement proceedings.
Therefore, the Court considers that the second and third applicants cannot claim to be “victims”, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of the alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 of the Convention.
It follows that as far as the second and the third applicants are concerned, the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the application in so far as it concerns the first applicant;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
GreffierPrésident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy