FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 46161/99
by Giuseppa PEPE
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 December 1998 and registered on 15 February 1999,
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 applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1938 and living in Sorrento (Naples). She is represented before the Court by Mr C. Aiello, a lawyer practising in Torre Annunziata.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Meta (Naples), which she had let to V.C.
In a writ served on the tenant on 24 January 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Sorrento Magistrate.
By a decision of 12 July 1989, which was made enforceable on 26 September 1989, the Sorrento Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 May 1991
On 18 June 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 27 July 1992 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 August 1992.
Between 12 August 1992 and 16 June 1998 the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings. 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 maintain that the delay in providing the assistance of the police is justified by the protection of the public interest.
The applicant argues that the refusal of the administration to enforce the order issued by the magistrate has interfered with the power of the judiciary.
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