FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 50293/99
by Fabrizio ROBBA
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 June 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 lodged on 23 April 1999,
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 1957 and living in Turin.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Turin, which he had let to A.G.
In a registered letter of 27 November 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1992 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 17 March 1993, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.
By a decision of 27 April 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1993.
On 5 November 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 18 January 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 January 1994.
On 19 January 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
Between 28 January 1994 and 23 September 1998, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
On 12 July 1999, pursuant to Law no. 431/98 the enforcement proceedings were suspended for eighteen months.
On 18 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his inability to recover possession of his apartment amounted to a violation of the right to property. The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings. The applicant also refers to Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention.
The Court considers that the last complaint shall be examined under Articles 6 and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The Government argue that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies on the grounds that he failed to challenge the refusal of police assistance before the administrative courts.
The Court recalls that it has already dismissed this objection in the Immobiliare Saffi case (see the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 40-42, ECHR 1999-V). The Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding. This objection should therefore be rejected.
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 submit that the delay in granting police assistance is justified on grounds of the order of priorities established according to public-safety requirements. In any event, the Government stress that following the entry into force of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the Prefect is no longer competent to determine the order of priority for the enforcement of the evictions. The date of enforcement should now be set by the District Court.
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 these complaints raise complex and serious issues under Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, 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 complaints 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