CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 juillet 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA31CEDC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDAD452F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s19B7B205 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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             CASE OF VIETTI v. ITALY   (Application no. 37248/97)                       JUDGMENT (Friendly settlement)     STRASBOURG   18 July 2002     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vietti v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting 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 , judges ,   Mrs   M. Del Tufo , ad hoc judge , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 4 July 2002, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   37248/97) against the Italian Republic lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article   25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian national, Mrs Elda Vietti (“the applicant”), on 2 April 1997. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr G.M. Junginger, a lawyer practising in Milan. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr U. Leanza, and by their co-agent, Mr   V.   Esposito. 3.     The applicant complained about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. 4.     On 4 October 2001, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court declared the application admissible. 5.     On 26 February 2002 and on 1 March 2002 the applicant and the Agent of the Government respectively submitted formal declarations proposing a friendly settlement of the case. THE FACTS 6.     The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to E.P. 7.     In a writ served on the tenant on 9 June 1987, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. 8.     By a decision of 18 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 29   June 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 June 1989. 9.     On 16 May 1989 and again on 1 October 1990 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. 10.     On 6 November 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 November 1990. 11.     Between 23 November 1990 and 15 July 1999, the bailiff made thirty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 12.     Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended. 13.     In July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment. THE LAW 14.     On 1 March 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Italy offer to pay 15,493.71 Euros (30,000,000   ITL) to Mrs   Elda Vietti with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no. 37248/97. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months starting from the notification of the judgment delivered by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. This declaration does not entail any acknowledgement by the Government of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the present case. The Government further undertake not to request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.” 15.     On 26 February 2002 the Court received from the applicant's representative the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I note that the Government of Italy are prepared to pay a sum totalling 15,493.71   Euros (30,000,000   ITL) covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Mrs   Elda   Vietti with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no.   37248/97 pending before the Court. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims in respect of Italy relating to the facts of this application. I declare that the case is definitely settled. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicant have reached. I further undertake not to request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after the delivery of the Court's judgment.” 16.     The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article   37   §   1 in   fine of the Convention and Rule   62   §   3 of the Rules of Court). 17.     Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1.     Decides to strike the case out of the list;   2.     Takes note of the parties' undertaking not to request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber. Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 July 2002, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President