SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33198/96
by Domenico SENESE
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 31 May 1996 and registered on 26 September 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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1962 and living in Salerno.
He is represented before the Court by Mr Vincenzo Indelli, a lawyer practising in Salerno.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Salerno, which he had let to G.R.
In a registered letter of 9 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 20 June 1987, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Salerno Magistrate. By a decision of 4 August 1987, which was made enforceable on 30 June 1987, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1989.
On 4 August 1987 and again on 25 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 20 February 1990, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 April 1990.
On 18 April 1990, the bailiff requested police assistance and adjourned the proceedings pending the Prefect’s decision on the grant of the assistance of the police.
On 5 May 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
On an unspecified date in 1995, the Prefect granted the assistance of the police as from 24 November 1995. On 2 December 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 February 1996.
The bailiff made 2 attempts to recover possession, on 6 February 1996 and 21 March 1996. These attempts proved unsuccessful, as in the meantime the grant of the assistance of the police had been had been suspended until 30 April 1996.
On 5 May 1996, the applicant repossessed the apartment with the assistance of the police.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicant complained about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment.
2.The applicant further complained about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
On 9 December 1999 the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 10 February 2000. On 16 February 2000 the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit his observations by 29 March 2000. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 25 May 2000 the Registry of the Court reminded the applicant’s lawyer that the deadline for submitting observations had expired on 29 March 2000 and warned him 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 lawyer 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 his 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