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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } SECOND SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 33227/96 by Rita SCURCI CHIMENTI 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 , [Note1] and   Mr   E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 May 1996 and registered on 27 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 applicant,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1943 and living in Livorno.   A.   The circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Livorno, which she had let to G.T. and G.P.     In a registered letter of 18 November 1987, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1989 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.     In a writ served on the tenants on 5 December 1987, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.     By a decision of 14 December 1987, which was made enforceable on 15 December 1987, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 October 1989.     On 11 May 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.     On 31 May 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.     On 15 June 1990, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 July 1990.     Between 10 July 1990 and 5 April 1996, the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession, on 10 July 1990, 19 February 1991, 18 October 1991, 8 April 1992, 22 November 1992, 30 March 1993, 19 October 1993, 13 May 1994, 29 November 1994, 10 March 1995, 5   April 1995, 18 October 1995 and 5 April 1996.     Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.     On 9 July 1999, the tenants asked the Livorno District Court to postpone the execution of the order for possession, pursuant to Article 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998.     On 11 August 1999, the applicant served a second notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 September 1999.   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.     COMPLAINTS   1.   The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment.   2.   The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.     THE LAW     The applicant complains that her inability to recover possession of her 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 argue that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies. They submit that she has failed to issue proceedings in the administrative courts challenging the refusal of police assistance and to raise, in the same proceedings, the constitutionality of the legislative provisions concerned.     The Court recalls that it has already dismissed this objection in the Immobiliare Saffi case (see the Immobiliare Saffi judgment cited above, §§   40-42). As the Government have not submitted any new argument in support of their objection, the Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding. This exception should therefore be rejected.     The Government further argue that the arrangements for staggering the police assistance were not part of the judicial process for enforcement of orders for possession, since police intervention was an administrative issue, entirely separate from and independent of the judicial process. That administrative phase can not be said to come within the scope of Article 6.   The Court recalls that it has already held that Article 6 of the Convention is applicable to the tenants eviction proceedings (see the Immobiliare Saffi judgment cited above, §§ 62-63). As the Government have not submitted any new argument in support of their objections, the Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding. This exception should therefore also be rejected.     On the merits, 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 [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)