CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 juin 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. 32538/96 by Manuela MORESCHI against Italy     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 June 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   C.L. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka,   Mr   B. Conforti,   Mr   P. Lorenzen,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   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 20 March 1996 and registered on 6 August 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1957 and living in Rome.     She is represented before the Court by Mr Dino Valenza, a lawyer practising in Rome.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to I.N. and A.C. In a registered letter of 2 July 1983, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 May 1986 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.     In a writ served on the tenants on 7 November 1986, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Rome Magistrate. By a decision of 1 December 1986, which was made enforceable on 26 March 1987, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 26 March 1988.     On 6 October 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises. On 23 November 1989, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 December 1989.     Between 20 December 1989 and 18 October 1995 the bailiff made 30 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.     In the meantime, on 11 April 1992, the applicant had made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.     On 29 November 1995, the applicant repossessed the apartment, which had been spontaneously vacated by the tenants.     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 28 September 1999 the Court invited the Government of Italy to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case before 26 November 1999. On 6   December 1999 the Government’s observations were transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer who was invited to submit observations by 24 January 2000. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 9 May 2000 the Registry of the Court reminded the applicant’s lawyer that the deadline for submitting observations had expired on 24 January   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