FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 67073/01
by Michele SCARFOGLIERO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 March 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrE. Levits,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 March 2001,
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, Mr Michele Scarfogliero, is an Italian national who was born in 1922 and lives in Torre del Greco (Naples). He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Cardella, a lawyer practising in Torre Del Greco (Naples). The Italian Government were represented by their Agents, Mr U. Leanza and Mr I.M. Braguglia, and by their successive co-Agents, respectively Mr V. Esposito and Mr F. Crisafulli.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Torre del Greco, which he had let to M.A.
In a registered letter of 27 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 August 1992 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
The tenant told the applicant that she would not leave the premises.
In a writ served on the tenant on 12 February 1992, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Torre del Greco Magistrate.
By a decision of 21 February 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre del Greco Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 August 1993.
On 25 January 1996, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 26 March 1996 he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 April 1996.
Between 19 April 1996 and 24 September 1999, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
Pursuant to Law no. 388/00, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 29 June 2001, Law-decree no. 247/01 suspended them until 31 December 2001 and Law-Decree no. 450/01 until 30 June 2002.
It is not clear whether the applicant has recovered possession of the apartment.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment.
2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
THE LAW
In a letter of 29 July 2003, the Registry of the Court informed the applicant that Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001 (“the Pinto Act”) had come into force on 18 April 2001, introducing into Italian legislation a remedy in respect of the excessive length of court proceedings. The applicant was at the same time invited to refer his complaint to the national courts and to inform the Court before 15 September 2003 if he intended to use this remedy.
Having received no reply, the Registry of Court warned the applicant by registered letter dated 14 November 2003 that in the absence of any response the Court might proceed to an examination of the case as it stood or even proceed to strike the case from its list. The applicant received the letter on 19 November 2003 but did not reply.
In these circumstances, the Court finds that, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the applicant has lost interest in his application and no longer intends to pursue it before the Court.
Furthermore, in accordance with Article Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention, 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.
Santiago QuesadaChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy