FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 58191/00
by Antonio MOTTOLA
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 February 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 12 May 2000 and registered on 19 June 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 1932 and living in Benevento. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Pizzillo a lawyer practising in Benevento.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Benevento, which he had let to N.C.
In a writ served on the tenant on 27 April 1994, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Benevento Magistrate.
By a decision of 25 May 1994, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Benevento Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1996.
On 30 November 1996, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 10 February 1997, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 February 1997.
Between 25 February 1997 and 9 November 1998, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Benevento District Court to set a new date for the enforcement of the order for possession. The date was set for 25 April 2000 and then for 30 September 2000.
On 12 October 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 4 November 2000, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 November 2000.
Between 27 November 2000 and 26 April 2001, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance.
A new attempt of the bailiff to enforce the order for possession was set for 21 June 2001.
On 8 August 2001, 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 that the delay in the enforcement of the order issued by the Benevento Magistrate resulted in a denial of his right of access to a court. The Court has also examined this complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy