SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33692/96
by Maria Giuseppa TRAINO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Levits, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 March 1996 and registered on 7 November 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1965 and living in Torre del Greco (Naples).
She is represented before the Court by Mr Antonio Orpello, a lawyer practising in Torre del Greco.
A.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Torre del Greco, which she had let to M. R.
In a registered letter of 1 December 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987, and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
In a writ served on the tenant on 1 September 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
By a decision of 20 September 1989, which was made enforceable on 4 October 1989, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1992.
On 14 July 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
On 23 September 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
On 11 November 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 November 1993.
Between 22 November 1993 and 16 April 1998 the bailiff made 10 attempts to recover possession, on 22 November 1993, 23 May 1994, 4 November 1994, 12 May 1995, 7 November 1995, 19 April 1996, 10 October 1996, 13 March 1997, 30 October 1997, 16 April 1998.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
On 4 March 1999, the applicant and the tenant entered into a new lease.
B.Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law is described in the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, 28.7.99, §§ 18-35.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicant complains about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment.
2.The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that her inability to recover possession of her apartment amounted to a violation of her right of property, as embodied in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings. Article 6 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal ...”
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.
The applicant argues that the absolute uncertainty about the date of the eviction forced her to enter into a new lease with the same recalcitrant tenant.
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.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy