SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33911/96
by Gisella SFARDINI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 7 October 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Judges,
withMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 28 September 1996 by Gisella Sfardini against Italy and registered on 20 November 1996 under file no. 33911/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1926 and living in Milan. Before the Court, she is represented by Mr Franco Scarciglia, a lawyer practising in Milan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to M.H. The lease expired on 10 May 1987.
In a writ served on the tenant on 29 September 1990, the applicant expressed her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate (pretore). On 25 June 1992 the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1994. The decision was made enforceable on 26 July 1992.
On 30 March 1994 the applicant made a statutory declaration (dichiarazione di urgente necessità) that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
On an unspecified date, the applicant served a notice (precetto) on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises, and subsequently a notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff (significazione di sfratto). The bailiff made a number of attempts to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
Subsequently, on an unspecified date after January 1997, the applicant repossessed her apartment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the enforcement proceedings and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the delay in the repossession of her apartment.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
By a letter dated 9 September 1999, the applicant informed the Court that, having recovered possession of her apartment, she does not wish to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention).
In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, 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