CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 septembre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s796BDE8F { width:14.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6D186F70 { width:22.36pt; display:inline-block } .sF7796C56 { width:260.85pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION   DECISION   Application no. 31481/96 by A.P. and R.C. against Italy       The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 14 September 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   C. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   M. Fischbach,   Mr   B. Conforti,   Mr   P. Lorenzen,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Mr   A.B. Baka,   Mr   E. Levits, Judges ,   with   Mr   E. 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 23 April 1996 by A.P. and R.C. against Italy and registered on 14 May 1996 under file no. 31481/96;     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows: THE FACTS   The applicants are Italian nationals, born in 1940 and 1944 respectively and living in Milan.   They are represented before the Court by Mrs Annaluisa de Sanna Crippa, a lawyer practising in Milan.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.     The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Milan, which they had let to L.F. since 31 December 1964. The lease expired on 31 December 1983.     On 15 February 1983 they served a notice to quit ( disdetta ) on the tenant, but she refused to leave.     In a writ served on the tenant on 3 June 1986, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate ( pretore ).     On 11 June 1986 the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 11 June 1987. The decision was enforceable on 18   June 1986.     On 21 June 1990, the applicants made a statutory declaration ( dichiarazione di urgente necessità ) that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.     On 22 November 1990, the applicants served a notice ( precetto ) on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.     On 8 January 1991, they served a notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff ( significazione di sfratto ) on 18 January 1991.     Between 18 January 1991 and 29 February 1996, the bailiff made a number of attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.     Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the order for possession was enforced and the applicants repossessed their apartment.     COMPLAINTS     The applicants 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 their repossession of their apartment.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION     By a letter dated 20 July 1999, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants now have recovered possession of their apartment and do not wish to pursue their 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 Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President