CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 mai 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 } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .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. 31931/96 by G.G. against Italy     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   C.L. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   B. Conforti,   Mr   G. Bonello,   Mrs   V. Strážnická,   Mr   M. Fischbach,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Mr   E. Levits, judges , and   Mr   E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23 February 1996 and registered on 17 June 1996,     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 1936 and living in Certaldo.     She is represented before the Court by Mr Alberto Corrado, a lawyer practising in Castelfiorentino.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence which she had let to U.G.     In a writ served on the tenant on 12 January 1987, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate. On 28 January 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1991. That decision was made enforceable on 23 May 1992.   On 18 June 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 9 September 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 September 1992. On 15 October 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her children.     Between 17 September 1992 and 4 February 1997, the bailiff made 12 attempts to recover possession, on 17 September 1992, 2 February 1993, 8 June 1993, 21 December 1993, 24 May 1994, 10   October 1994, 25 February 1995, 18 July 1995, 21 November 1995, 16 April 1996, 8   October 1996 and 4 February 1997. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.     On 20 March 1997, the applicant and the tenant reached a friendly settlement. As scheduled by the settlement, on 31 March 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant complained about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment. The applicant further complained about the duration of the eviction proceedings.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION     On 21 October 1999 the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 17 December 1999. On 21   December the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit his observations by 8 February 2000. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 6   April 2000 the Registry of the Court reminded the applicant’s lawyer that the deadline for submitting observations had expired on 8 February 2000 and warned him that, no extension of time having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer 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 her 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