SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30531/96
by Francesco NOBILI MASSUERO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 9 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrB. Conforti,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 22 November 1995 by Francesco Nobili Maussuero against Italy and registered on 20 March 1996 under file no. 30531/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1917 and living in Rome.
He is represented before the Court by Mr Fabrizio Spagnolo, a lawyer practising in Rome.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to A.G.
In a writ served on the tenant on 4 July 1986, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. By a decision of 12 February 1987, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 3 July 1988.
On an unspecified date the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 September 1988.
Between 16 September 1988 and 5 October 1997, the bailiff made 41 attempts to recover possession, on 16 September 1988, 17 January 1989, 16 May 1989, 16 June 1989, 14 July 1989, 28 September 1989, 14 November 1989, 17 January 1990, 20 February 1990, 20 March 1990, 27 April 1990, 5 June 1990, 11 July 1990, 12 September 1990, 23 October 1990, 5 December 1990, 30 January 1991, 8 March 1991, 18 April 1991, 6 June 1991, 18 July 1991, 4 October 1991, 14 November 1991, 15 January 1992, 10 March 1992, 26 June 1992, 28 July 1992, 27 November 1992, 26 February 1993, 25 May 1993, 5 October 1993, 25 January 1994, 27 September 1994, 7 February 1995, 10 May 1995, 22 September 1995, 26 January 1996, 3 October 1996, 27 February 1997, 10 April 1997 and 5 October 1997.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
By a letter dated 16 July 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicant’s lawyer to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 27 October 1999, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for updated information and warned the applicant’s lawyer that, should such information not be received before 24 November 1999, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 8 November 1999, did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 c) of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in his application. 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 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