CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 décembre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s24C63AC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s95C8C447 { width:21.01pt; display:inline-block } .sB8E7E177 { width:263.17pt; display:inline-block } .s78E5042 { width:4.01pt; 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41699/98 by Zdzisław RADOMSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   December 2000 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk , judges [Note1] , and   Mrs   S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 January 1998 and registered on 15   June 1998, 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 a Polish national, born in 1937 and living in Biskupiec in Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Particular circumstances of the case The applicant is the owner of house comprising three apartments of 44   square metres each, situated in Pruszków. The applicant’s family occupies one of them, and tenants, who have tenancy contracts established by way of administrative decisions, lived in the two other apartments. One of his tenants paid a rent of 70 Polish zlotys, whereas the other paid nothing. In 1987 the applicant lodged a civil action against the non-paying tenant, requesting her eviction. On 27 November 1987 the Pruszków District Court ordered the eviction. In 1988 the applicant submitted the eviction order to the local municipal administration, requesting that the municipality assist him in the enforcement of the judgment by allocating replacement social housing to his tenant. By a letter of 6 February 1997, apparently in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the lack of any activity in the enforcement proceedings, the Pruszków Municipal Council informed him that evictions were being carried out by the Council in the order in which the relevant eviction judgments had been submitted to it, and insofar as the Council had at its disposal alternative accommodation for the evicted persons.   It was further stated that the applicant’s request to have the judgment enforced was registered as item No. 7 on the list of judgments awaiting enforcement accompanied by an allocation of social accommodation. On 28 August 1997 and on 10 November 1997 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Internal Affairs about the impossibility of having the judgment enforced. On 9 December 1997 the Municipal Council informed the applicant, in reply to a query from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, that his request for eviction was then registered as item No. 6 on the list of eviction orders to be carried out. On 9 October 2000 the tenant moved out and on 10 October 2000 the applicant took possession of the apartment. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in which he endeavoured to obtain the eviction of his tenant was excessive. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that he was deprived of the effective enjoyment of his property rights, in that he could not dispose of his property and secure the eviction of a non-paying tenant. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant, by his letter of 30 October 2000, informed the Court that he did not intend to pursue the case as the apartment had been repossessed. In these circumstances the Court concludes, in accordance with Article   37   § 1 (c) of the Convention, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present application. Moreover, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the case by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President   [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via Alt+S 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 Registrar.)