CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 mars 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. 34668/97 by G.R. against Italy     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 March 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 the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 November 1996 and registered on   29 January 1997,     Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1949 and living in Asti.     He is represented before the Court by Mr Massimo Padovani, a lawyer practising in Asti.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Asti, which he had let to C.T.     In a writ served on the tenant on 4 October 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Asti Magistrate.     By a decision of 25 October 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Asti Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1992.     On an unspecified date, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 23 February 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff.     The bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for 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 1 October 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 11 January 2000, 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 14 February 2000, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 19 January 2000, 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