CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 février 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. 36251/97 by M.P. and I.F. against Italy     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 10 February 2000 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 5   March 1997 by M.P. and I.F. against Italy and registered on 26 May 1997 under file no.   36251/97;     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 respectively in 1965 and 1941 and living in Rome.     They are represented before the Court by the first applicant, 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 C.V.     In a writ served on the tenant on 14 December 1982, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.     By a decision of 22 December 1982, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1984.     On 24 September 1985, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 22 October 1985, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 December 1985.     Between 16 December 1985 and 27 September 1996, the bailiff made 48 attempts to recover possession. In the meantime, on 18 September 1987, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.     On 21 December 1996, the applicants sold the apartment.   COMPLAINTS     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION     The last letter sent by the applicants to the Commission was dated 3 June 1997. By a letter dated 9 November 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicants to provide more detailed information about the eviction proceedings. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 11 January 2000, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for updated information and warned the applicants that, should such information not be received before 14 February 2000, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The letter could not be delivered, since the first applicant, who is also the lawyer, appears to have changed address without notifying the Court of the new one.       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