CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 octobre 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 } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s90EFB1F8 { width:233.69pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF F. AND F. v. ITALY   (Application no. 31928/96)                       JUDGMENT (Friendly settlement)     STRASBOURG   24 October 2002     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of F. and F. v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   E. Steiner, judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 10 October 2002, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   31928/96) 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 two Italian nationals, Mr F. F. and Mrs G. F. (“the applicants”), on 5   December 1995. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr L. Curradi, a lawyer practising in Florence. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr U. Leanza, and by their co-agent, Mr V. Esposito. 3.     The applicants complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. 4.     The case was transferred to the Court on 1 November 1998 by virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention. On 17 January 2002, having obtained the parties' observations, the Court declared the application admissible. 5.     On 18 September 2002 and on 24 September 2002 the Government and the applicants respectively submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. THE FACTS 6.     The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to E.F. 7.     In a writ served on the tenant on 2 November 1987, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate. 8.     By a decision of 30 November 1987, which was made enforceable on 5   January 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988. 9.     On 20 May 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves. 10.     On 7 June 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. 11.     On 22 June 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 August 1989. 12.     Between 18 August 1989 and 10 September 1998, the bailiff made twenty   attempts to recover possession. 13.     Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. 14.     Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended. 15.     The applicants have not recovered possession of their apartment. THE LAW 16.     On 18 September 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Italy offer to pay 6,000 (six thousand)   Euros to Mr   F. and Mrs F. with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no.   31928/96. 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.” 17.     On 24 September 2002 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants and by the applicants' representative: “I note that the Government of Italy are prepared to pay a sum totalling 6,000 (six thousand)   Euros covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Mr   F. and Mrs F. with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no.   31928/96 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 applicants 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.” 18.     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). 19.     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 24 October 2002, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President