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 } .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. 33116/96 by Giuseppe SBORCHIA and Maddalena TOGNARINI 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 14 June 1996 and registered on 23 September 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 applicants,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicants are Italian nationals, living in Sesto Fiorentino.     They are represented before the Court by Mr Gian Luca Baldacci, a lawyer practising in Florence.   A.   The circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to U.R.     In a writ served on the tenant on 29 June 1987, the applicants informed him that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term of 31 December 1987 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.     By a decision of 3 December 1987, which was made enforceable on 19 March 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.     On 25 October 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.     On 6 July 1990 and again on 7 May 1992, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.     On 1 July 1992, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 August 1992.     Between 4 August 1992 and 3 November 1997, the bailiff made 11 attempts to recover possession, on 4 August 1992, 29 March 1993, 17 January 1994, 4 October 1994, 11   April 1995, 20 October 1995, 12 December 1995, 11 March 1996, 28 October 1996, 5   June 1997 and 3 November 1997.     Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.     On 23 December 1997, the applicants repossessed 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, ECHR-V.     COMPLAINTS   1.   The applicants complain about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartment. 2.   The applicants further complain about the duration of the eviction proceedings.     THE LAW     The applicants complain that their inability to recover possession of their 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 applicants further complain 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.     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 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