SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 44864/98
by V.L. and Others
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 October 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrL. Ferrari Bravo,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 August 1998 and registered on 16 December 1998,
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 applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are three Italian nationals, born respectively in 1966, 1968 and 1976 and living in Naples. They are represented before the Court by Mr G. della Pietra, a lawyer practising in Naples.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:
O.D.R. was the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to M.G.
On 14 November 1983, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983, but he refused to leave.
O.D.R. summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
By a decision of 30 November 1983, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 December 1985.
M.G. died, but his wife and his daughter refused to vacate the premises.
On 27 October 1989, O.D.R. died and the applicants inherited the apartment.
On 31 January 1991, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
On 4 March 1991, they served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 March 1991.
Between 14 March 1991 and 17 January 1997, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
On 11 September 1997, according to law no. 61/89, the applicants requested the Prefectoral Committee for assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
On 20 February 1998, the applicants recovered possession of the apartment.
THE LAW
The applicants complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that their inability to recover possession of their apartment amounted to a violation of the right to property. The applicants further complain, under Article 6 of the Convention, about the duration of the eviction proceedings.
The Government argue that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies on the grounds that they failed to challenge the refusal of police assistance before the administrative courts.
The Court recalls that it has already dismissed this objection in the Immobiliare Saffi case (see the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 40-42, ECHR 1999-V). The Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding. This objection should therefore be rejected.
The Government argue that the arrangements for staggering the police assistance were an administrative issue, entirely separate from and independent of the judicial process and therefore outside the scope of Article 6.
The Court recalls that it has already held that Article 6 of the Convention is applicable to the tenants eviction proceedings (see the Immobiliare Saffi judgment cited above, §§ 62-63). The Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding. This objection should therefore be rejected.
On the merits, 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 applicants’ property rights was not disproportionate.
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