SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 31929/96
by Giuseppe PINI and Laura BINI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 November 1995 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 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 applicants are Italian nationals, born respectively in 1946 and 1951 and living in Florence.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:
The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to N.V.
In a registered letter of 20 January 1988, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 1 August 1988 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 23 February 1988, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
On 7 April 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1990. That decision was made enforceable on 20 April 1988.
On 20 December 1990, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 24 January 1991, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 February 1991.
On 30 July 1993, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves and their ascendants.
Between 5 February 1991 and 29 January 1996 the bailiff made 9 attempts to recover possession, on 5 February 1991, 18 October 1991, 10 April 1992, 21 January 1993, 13 May 1993, 14 February 1994, 30 September 1994, 7 June 1995 and 29 January 1996.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
On 1 August 1996, the applicants repossessed the apartment.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law is described in the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, 28.7.99, §§ 18-35, ECHR-V.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartment.
2. The applicants further complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants complain that their inability to recover possession of their apartment amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The applicants further complain about the duration of the eviction proceedings. Article 6 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Government argue that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies. They submit that they have failed to issue proceedings in the administrative courts challenging the refusal of police assistance and to raise, in the same proceedings, the constitutionality of the legislative provisions concerned.
The applicants contest the Government’s arguments. They argue that the prefectoral committee never adopted a formal decision refusing police assistance and that, at any event, the proceedings in the administrative courts would not have been effective, given the length of these proceedings before Italian courts.
The Court recalls that it has already dismissed this objection in the Immobiliare Saffi case (see the Immobiliare Saffi judgment cited above, §§ 40-42). As the Government have not submitted any new argument in support of their objection, the Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding. This exception should therefore be rejected.
The applicants argue that the impossibility to repossess their apartment during 6 years from the issue of the order for possession amounts to a violation of their right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They argue that in the Italian legal system tenants are overprotected. Despite the fact that they had made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves and their ascendants, they could repossess the apartment only 6 years after the date set by the magistrate.
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 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