Application No. 22419/93
by Vittoria RINALDI
against Italy
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in
private on 5 March 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 8 May 1993 by
Vittoria RINALDI against Italy and registered on 5 August 1993 under file
No. 22419/93;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
28 April 1995 and the failure by the applicant to submit
observations in reply;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1935 and currently
residing in Salerno.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant owns an apartment in Salerno, which she let in 1970
at a low rent, according to the relevant legislation on rent control
("equo canone").
On 7 April 1986, she gave notice ("disdetta") to the sitting tenant
to quit on expiry of the lease on 31 December 1986, since she was in need
of the apartment for her daughter. The tenant refused to leave the
apartment.
As a consequence of the above refusal, the applicant brought an
action against the tenant; by judgment of 27 May 1987, the Salerno
magistrate (Pretore) confirmed the eviction with effect from
31 December 1986, and fixed the date of 30 April 1989 for its
enforcement.
On 10 January 1990, the applicant served on the tenant the order
("precetto") to vacate the apartment, together with the accompanying
solemn declaration that she was in urgent need of the apartment for her
daughter. According to the relevant legislation, such a declaration gives
the landlord priority in the grant of the assistance of the police in
enforcing the eviction.
Nevertheless, and despite seven requests addressed to the Prefect
of Salerno, the assistance of the police was not granted and, as a
consequence, numerous attempts by a bailiff to evict the tenant were
unsuccessful.
Only in late 1993 the applicant was granted the assistance of the
police, and succeeded in enforcing the eviction.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that for many years she has not been able
to evict the tenant from her apartment, despite the enforceable judgment
and her urgent need of the apartment.
She alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol N° 1.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 8 May 1993 and registered on
5 August 1993.
On 11 January 1995, the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (a)
of the Rules of Procedure.
The Government's observations were submitted on 28 April 1995, after
an extension of the time-limit. The applicant was invited to make
submissions in reply by 26 June 1995. Further to the applicant's failure
to respond, the Secretariat warned her by registered letter dated
27 November 1995 that in the absence of any response the Commission might
proceed to an examination of the case as it stood or even proceed to
strike the case from its list. The applicant did not reply.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission recalls that the applicant has failed to submit
observations in reply to the Government and has not replied to a
registered letter from the Secretariat, in which she was warned of the
possibility that the case might be struck from the list.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that, having regard to
Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the applicant has lost interest
in her application and no longer intends to pursue it before the
Commission. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine,
the Commission 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 Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy