CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 janvier 2000

.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 } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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. 32007/96 by Romano SANTINI against Italy       The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 20 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   C.L. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   M. Fischbach,   Mr   B. Conforti,   Mr   G. Bonello,   Mrs   V. Strážnická,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Mr   E. Levits, 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 8   May 1996 by Romano Santini against Italy and registered on 24   June 1996 under file no.   32007/96;     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1930 and living in Pomarance.     He is represented before the Court by Mrs Sonia Ticciati, a lawyer practising in Pontedera.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Livorno, which he had let to M.G.     In a writ served on the tenant on 4 January 1986, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate. By a decision of 20 January 1986, which was made enforceable on 21 January 1986, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1986.     On an unspecified date, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On an unspecified date, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 June 1987.     Between 25 June 1987 and 28 November 1995, the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant complained about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION     By a letter dated 20 July 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicant’s lawyer to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 9 November 1999, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for updated information and warned the applicant’s lawyer that, should such information not be received before 7 December 1999, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 18 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 applicant has lost interest in his 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