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 } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC237BB48 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0.55pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC2250E92 { width:36.56pt; display:inline-block } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 32655/96 by L.C.G. 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 16 January 1996 and registered on 20 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1961 living in Milan.     He is represented before the Court by Mr Paolo Giuggioli, a lawyer practising in Milan.   A.   The circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     Mrs Z. was the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to Z. F.     In a writ served on the tenant on 11 March 1985, the heirs of Mrs Z., who had died in the meantime, informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Milan Magistrate.     By a decision of 28 March 1985, which was made enforceable on 25 July 1985, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 March 1986.     Later, the Magistrate postponed the deadline for the vacation to 13 March 1987.     On 1 December 1989, Mr G.F. became the owner of the apartment.     On 21 November 1991, he served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.     On 17 January 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 February 1992.     On 7 May 1992, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.     On 25 August 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.     Between 14 February 1992 and 11 March 1996, the bailiff made 19 attempts to recover possession, on 14 February 1992, 12 May 1992, 15 September 1992, 26 November 1992, 22 February 1993, 13 May 1993, 16 July 1993, 7 October 1993, 13   January 1994, 14   April 1994, 28 June 1994, 20 July 1994, 29 November 1994, 16   February 1995, 27 April 1995, 13 July 1995, 17 October1995, 23 January 1996 and 11   March 1996.     Each attempt to recover possession of the apartment proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.     On 20 June 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.   B.   Relevant domestic law     The relevant domestic law is described in the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, 28.7.99, §§ 18-35, CEDH-V.     COMPLAINTS   1.   The applicant complains about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment.   2.   The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings.     THE LAW     The applicant complains that his inability to recover possession of his apartment amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides:   “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.   The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”     The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings. Article   6 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal ...”     The Government maintain that the measures in question amount to a control of the use of property which pursues the legitimate aim of avoiding the social tensions and troubles to public order that would occur if a considerable number of orders for possession were to be enforced simultaneously.     The applicant argues that the impossibility to repossess his apartment during four years, despite the fact that he had made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself, amounts to a violation of his right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     As to the length of the enforcement proceedings, the Government maintain that the delay in providing the assistance of the police is justified by the protection of the public interest. In any event, the Government stress that following the entry into force of Law no.   431 of 9 December 1998, the Prefect is no longer competent to determine the order of priority for the enforcement of the evictions. The date of enforcement should now be set by the District Court.   The applicant argues that the impossibility during four years to enforce the order issued by the Milan Magistrate amounts to a violation of his right to a court.     The Court considers that the application raises complex and serious issues which require a determination on the merits. It follows that it cannot be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.       Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President