CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 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. 31455/96 by Lucilla TONCELLI and Marco VERNACCINI against Italy     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 9 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   C.L. 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 18 December 1995 by Lucilla   TONCELLI and Marco VERNACCINI against Italy and registered on 10 May 1996 under file no. 31455/96;     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicants are Italian nationals, born in 1967 and 1966, living in Livorno.     They are represented before the Court by Mr Nino Amadei, a lawyer practising in Livorno.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.     Mrs E.S. was the owner of an apartment in Livorno, which she had let to A.O.     In a writ served on the tenant on 16 June 1989, she communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.     By a decision of 3 July 1989, which was made enforceable on 7 July 1989, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 June 1990.     On an unspecified date, the applicants became the owners of the apartment.     On 22 June 1990, they made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves. On an unspecified date, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11   September 1990.     Between 11 September 1990 and 6 November 1995, the bailiff made 10 attempts to recover possession, on 11 September 1990, 30 September 1990, 13 February 1991, 15   November 1991, 18 September 1992, 23 September 1993, 22 September 1994, 23   February 1995, 29 June 1995 and 6 November 1995. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.   COMPLAINTS     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartment and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION     By a letter dated 16 July 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicants’ lawyer to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 27 October 1999, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for updated information and warned the applicants’ lawyer that, should such information not be received before 24 November 1999, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicants’ lawyer, who received the said letter on 8 November 1999, did not reply.     In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 c) of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicants have lost interest in their application. Furthermore, 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