CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 mars 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          Application No. 22419/93                       by Vittoria RINALDI                       against Italy         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 5 March 1996, the following members being present:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 8 May 1993 by Vittoria RINALDI against Italy and registered on 5 August 1993 under file No. 22419/93;         Having regard to:   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       28 April 1995 and the failure by the applicant to submit       observations in reply;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1935 and currently residing in Salerno.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant owns an apartment in Salerno, which she let in 1970 at a low rent, according to the relevant legislation on rent control ("equo canone").         On 7 April 1986, she gave notice ("disdetta") to the sitting tenant to quit on expiry of the lease on 31 December 1986, since she was in need of the apartment for her daughter. The tenant refused to leave the apartment.         As a consequence of the above refusal, the applicant brought an action against the tenant; by judgment of 27 May 1987, the Salerno magistrate (Pretore) confirmed the eviction with effect from 31 December 1986, and fixed the date of 30 April 1989 for its enforcement.         On 10 January 1990, the applicant served on the tenant the order ("precetto") to vacate the apartment, together with the accompanying solemn declaration that she was in urgent need of the apartment for her daughter. According to the relevant legislation, such a declaration gives the landlord priority in the grant of the assistance of the police in enforcing the eviction.         Nevertheless, and despite seven requests addressed to the Prefect of Salerno, the assistance of the police was not granted and, as a consequence, numerous attempts by a bailiff to evict the tenant were unsuccessful.         Only in late 1993 the applicant was granted the assistance of the police, and succeeded in enforcing the eviction.   COMPLAINT         The applicant complains that for many years she has not been able to evict the tenant from her apartment, despite the enforceable judgment and her urgent need of the apartment.         She alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol N° 1.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 8 May 1993 and registered on 5 August 1993.         On 11 January 1995, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure.         The Government's observations were submitted on 28 April 1995, after an extension of the time-limit. The applicant was invited to make submissions in reply by 26 June 1995. Further to the applicant's failure to respond, the Secretariat warned her by registered letter dated 27 November 1995 that in the absence of any response the Commission might proceed to an examination of the case as it stood or even proceed to strike the case from its list. The applicant did not reply.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission recalls that the applicant has failed to submit observations in reply to the Government and has not replied to a registered letter from the Secretariat, in which she was warned of the possibility that the case might be struck from the list.         In these circumstances, the Commission finds that, having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the applicant has lost interest in her application and no longer intends to pursue it before the Commission. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine, the Commission 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 Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the First Chamber          President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                         (C.L. ROZAKIS)