SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33242/96
by Luigia MOLTENI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Stráznická,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA. Kovler, judges
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 April 1996 and registered on 30 September 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1919 and living in Milan. She is represented before the Court by Mr Gianfranco Candela, a lawyer practising in Milan.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to M.N.
In a writ served on the tenant on 13 March 1989, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. On 25 May 1989, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 December 1990. That decision was made enforceable on 27 May 1989.
On 11 January 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 31 January 1991 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 March 1991.
Between 8 March 1991 and 15 February 1999 the bailiff made 33 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 30 June 1999, the applicant repossessed the apartment with the assistance of the police.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment. She further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 27 March 2000 the Court received the following declaration by the Italian Government:
“I declare that the Government of Italy, without prejudice, offer to pay 20,000,000 ITL to Mrs Luigia MOLTENI with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under No. 33242/96. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as legal costs, and it will be payable within three months from the notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The present declaration takes into consideration the length of the proceedings, but it does not represent an evaluation of the reasons justifying that length before the domestic courts.
The Government further undertake not to request the reference of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.”
On 29 March 2000 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative:
“I note that the Government of Italy are prepared to pay 20,000,000 (covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and legal costs) to Mrs Luigia MOLTENI with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application No. 33242/96 pending before the Court.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims in respect of Italy relating to the facts of this application. I declare that the case is finally settled.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicant have reached.
I further undertake not to request the reference of the case to the Grand Chamber pursuant to Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after the delivery of the Court’s judgment.”
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court notes that the matter raised in the above application has been resolved. 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 examination of the application to be continued.
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