CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 juin 2002

.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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 66441/01 by A.G. against Italy The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   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 lodged on 19 February 2001, 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 1933 and living in Sesto Fiorentino (Florence). The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Sesto Fiorentino (Florence), which he had let to G.C. and G.P. In a registered letter of 29 November 1990, the applicant informed the tenants that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31   December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date. In a writ served on the tenants on 17 April 1991, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate. By a decision of 23 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 31 July 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992. On 29 April 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son. On 14 May 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises. On 2 June 1993, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 July 1993. Between 15 July 1993 and 15 October 1998, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 27 June 1999. On that date, the tenants asked the Florence Magistrate for a new suspension. On 11 July 2000, the Florence Magistrate decided to fix a new date for the enforcement proceedings, namely 25 January 2001. On 31 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment because the tenants spontaneously vacated the premises. THE LAW The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his inability to recover possession of his apartment amounted to a violation of the right to property. The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings and about the denia l of his right of access to a court. The Government argue that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies on the grounds that he failed to challenge the refusal of police assistance before the administrative courts. The Court recalls that it has already dismissed this objection in the Immobiliare Saffi case (see the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 40-42, ECHR 1999-V). The Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding. This objection should therefore be rejected. 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. In their opinion, the interference with the applicant’s property rights was not disproportionate; therefore, there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. As to the length of the enforcement proceedings, the Government submit that the delay in granting police assistance is justified on grounds of the order of priorities established according to public-safety requirements. 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