FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 58607/00
by Gastone SERAFINI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 February 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 13 June 2000 and registered on 30 June 2000,
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 1929 and living in Rome. He is represented before the Court by Mrs C. Serafini, a lawyer practising in Rome.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to O.S.
In a writ served on the tenant on 28 October 1992, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
By a decision of 3 March 1993, 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 3 March 1994.
On 9 April 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 26 April 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 May 1994.
Between 24 May 1994 and 26 November 1999, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
On 26 November 1999, 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 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings and about the denial of his right of access to a court.
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 maintain that the delay in providing the assistance of the police is justified by the protection of the public interest. 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 Court considers that the application raises complex and serious issues 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 application inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy