SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42645/98
by Lucia POLINI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 September 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Levits,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 May 1998 and registered on 7 August 1998,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, living in Rome. She is represented before the Court by Mr A.M. Luchini and Mr G. Croce, lawyers 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 she had let to M.S.
In a registered letter of 18 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 9 August 1991, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
By a decision of 13 February 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1992.
On 8 June 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 13 July 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 July 1992.
Between 31 July 1992 and 22 May 1997, the bailiff made thirty-one 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.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment.
2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
On 5 April 2001 the Court invited the applicant’s lawyers to submit an update of the facts of the case before 7 May 2001. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 14 May 2001 the Registry of the Court reminded the applicant’s lawyers that the deadline for submitting information had expired on 7 May 2001 and warned them that, no extension of the time-limit having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyers, who received the said letter on 20 June 2001, did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in her application. Furthermore, 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