CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 mars 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3E9DCCF8 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6B64E62F { width:203.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 59518/00 by Nunzia SAVARESE against Italy The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 March 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application registered on 1 August 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1966 and living in Pagani (Salerno). She is represented before the Court by Mr V. Savarese, a lawyer practising in Nocera Inferiore (Salerno). The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. C.L. was the owner of an apartment in Pagani, which he had let to G.C. In a writ served on the tenant on 12 January 1988, C.L. informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 24   March 1989 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date. The owner summoned the tenant to appear before the Nocera Inferiore Magistrate. By a decision of 29 January 1988, the Nocera Inferiore Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 24 March 1991. On 24 April 1991, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 10 May 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 May 1991. On 29 May 1991, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession that proved unsuccessful, as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. On 29 March 1993, the applicant became the owner of the apartment and pursued the enforcement proceedings. On 5 October 1999, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 November 1999. On 16 November 1999, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession that proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. The next attempt of the bailiff was set for 17 January 2000. On that date, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about her prolonged inability 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. REASONS FOR THE DECISION On 2 October 2001, the Court invited the applicant’s lawyer to submit an update of the facts concerning the enforcement proceedings occurred between 1991 and 1999, and to submit them before 2 November 2001. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 26 November 2001, the Registry of the Court reminded the applicant’s lawyer that the deadline for submitting information had expired on 2 November 2001, and warned him that, no extension of the time-limit having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 3   December 2001, did not reply. In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in her application. Furthermore, 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