CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 décembre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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. 34738/97 by Maria Pia SORRENTINO and Franco SAUDELLI against Italy     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 2 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   C. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   B. Conforti,   Mr   P. Lorenzen,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Mr   A.B. Baka,   Mr   E. Levits,   Mr   A. Kovler, judges ,   and   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 28 November 1996 by Maria   Pia   SORRENTINO and Franco SAUDELLI against Italy and registered on 4 February 1997 under file no. 34738/97;     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 1952 and 1959 and living in Rome.     They are represented before the Court by Mr Achille Rainone, a lawyer practising in Rome.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.     The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Rome, which they had let to R.C.     In a writ served on the tenant on an unspecified date, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate. By a decision of 5 December 1983, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 5 December 1984. The decision was made enforceable on 31 January 1986.     On 6 February 1986 the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 21 February 1986, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 April 1986.     Between 24 April 1986 and 23 September 1996, the bailiff made 53 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. In the meantime, on 11 June 1996, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.     COMPLAINTS     The applicants complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION     The last letter sent by the applicants’ lawyer to the Commission was dated 10 January 1997. By a letter dated 1 October 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicants’ lawyer to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. The letter could not be delivered, since the lawyer appears to have changed address without notifying the Court of the new one. The applicants never communicated their personal address to the Court.     In accordance with Article 37 § 1, c of the Convention, the applicants must be considered to have lost interest in their application. It is therefore not justified to continue the examination of the application.   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