CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 3 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 24 April 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 28342/21 Daria PRATESI against Italy and 14 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern eviction proceedings instituted by the applicants, owners of leased premises. In particular, the enforcement of the orders for possession ( ordinanze di sfratto ) for rent arrears issued in the applicants’ favour was suspended pursuant to emergency legislation enacted in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, namely Article 103 § 6 of Law Decree no. 18/2020, Article 17-bis of Law Decree no. 34/2020, and Article 40-quarter of Law Decree no.   41/2021. By judgment no. 213/2021, the Constitutional Court dismissed several questions of constitutionality with regard to the above-mentioned provisions. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain about the disproportionate character of the generalised suspension which did not allow for a consideration of the circumstances of the case and was not balanced by compensatory measures. Under Article 6 of the Convention (access to a tribunal), they complain about the delay and uncertainty in the enforcement of the judicial orders for possession.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the statutory suspension of the enforcement of the orders for possession under the relevant Law Decrees (Law Decree no. 18/2020, Law Decree no. 34/2020 and Law Decree no. 41/2021), did the applicants exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? The parties are invited to submit pertinent domestic case-law and/or legal literature on the matter.   2.     Did the statutory suspension of the enforcement of the orders for possession impose an excessive and disproportionate burden on the applicants, amounting to a violation of their right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ( Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)? In answering that question, the parties are asked to comment on: (i) the duration of the suspension of the enforcement of the orders for possession in their specific cases, taking into account the nature and the issuing date of the orders; (ii) the evolution and the aims of the legislative framework, taking into consideration the different measures sequentially enacted; (iii) the compensatory measures of a general or specific nature (i.e. addressed to the general population and/or to landlords subject to the suspension) provided for by the State and applicable to the present cases (see, for example, the exemption from the municipal property tax – “IMU” – under Art. 4-ter of Law-Decree no. 73/2021 converted into Law no. 106/2021).   3.     Did the statutory suspension of the enforcement of the orders for possession impose a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no.   33509/04, § 65-67, ECHR 2009; mutatis mutandis Bozza v. Italy , no.   17739/09, §§ 42-44, 14 September 2017; and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §74, ECHR 1999-V)?   REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 1.     The applicants are invited to inform the Court of the status of the enforcement of the orders for possession and whether they have benefited from any compensatory measure of a general or specific nature.   2.     The Government are   invited to   provide statistical information on the suspension of the enforcement of the orders for possession and on State aid (i.e. income supports, allowances and tax benefits) provided for and granted in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic and of direct or indirect relevance in the present cases.   3.     The parties are invited to describe the Italian legal system addressing the issue of evictions for rent arrears in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, and to provide elements, also of comparative law (see, for example, the database “Covid-19 Litigation – Open-Access Case Law Database”), on the scope and reasons of this legislative choice.     No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Domestic court / file number Date of the order for possession Date of enforceability [1] 1. 28342/21 Pratesi v. Italy 27/05/2021 Daria PRATESI 1977 Rome Italian Federico MARINI BALESTRA Rome Rome District Court, R.G. 61705/2020 15/12/2020 04/01/2021 2. 29227/21 Triggiani v. Italy 01/06/2021 Rossella TRIGGIANI 1957 Noicattaro Italian Domenico ROMITO Bari Bari District Court, R.G. 1222/2020 09/12/2020 29/01/2021 3. 31518/21 Candeloro v. Italy 08/06/2021 Sabatino CANDELORO 1943 Rome Italian Paolo DE SANCTIS MANGELLI Rome Rome District Court, R.G. 46844/19 04/10/2019 14/10/2019 4. 33965/21 Pellizzari v. Italy 22/06/2021 Liliana Amabile Teresa PELLIZZARI 1948 Cinisello Balsamo Italian Bruno NASCIMBENE Milan Monza District Court, R.G. 7867/2019 05/09/2019 05/10/2019 5. 40354/21 Mazzeo v. Italy 30/07/2021 Mariateresa MAZZEO 1943 Rome Italian Paolo DE SANCTIS MANGELLI Rome Rome District Court, R.G. 62774/2019 04/03/2020 24/03/2020 6. 57194/21 Gianciotta v. Italy 11/11/2021 Luigi GIANCIOTTA 1957 Statte Italian Carlo GAMBA Rome Taranto District Court, R.G. 5629/19 17/12/2019 16/01/2020 7. 57196/21 Costanza and Wawrzynska v. Italy 11/11/2021 Household Leonardo COSTANZA 1979 Bari Italian Magdalena Anna WAWRZYNSKA 1979 Bari Polish Carlo GAMBA Rome Bari District Court, R.G. 8422/2020 09/10/2020 24/11/2020 8. 57199/21 Querzoli v. Italy 11/11/2021 Paola QUERZOLI 1979 Sasso Marconi Italian Carlo GAMBA Rome Forlì District Court, R.G. 2499/2020 12/01/2021 12/03/2021 9. 57200/21 Ciani v. Italy 11/11/2021 Antonella CIANI 1959 Rome Italian Carlo GAMBA Rome Rome District Court, R.G. 6630/2020 07/09/2020 07/01/2021 10. 57915/21 Calicchio v. Italy 11/11/2021 Giuseppe Nicola CALICCHIO 1985 Sassuolo Italian Carlo GAMBA Rome Reggio Emilia District Court, R.G. 5602/2020 17/12/2020 17/02/2021 11. 57916/21 Sanguinetti v. Italy 11/11/2021 Maria Roberta SANGUINETTI 1979 Vimodrone Italian Carlo GAMBA Rome Busto Arsizio District Court, R.G. 4510/2019 12/12/2019 12/01/2020 12. 57917/21 Mazzetti and Ajello v. Italy 11/11/2021 Household Marco MAZZETTI 1946 Rome Italian Annalisa AJELLO 1952 Rome Italian Carlo GAMBA Rome Rome District Court, R.G. 74271/2019 04/03/2020 04/04/2020 13. 57919/21 Treccani and Bianchi v. Italy 11/11/2021 Household Riccardo TRECCANI 1943 Serle Italian Margherita BIANCHI 1946 Serle Italian Carlo GAMBA Rome Brescia District Court, R.G. 2521/2020 13/10/2020 13/11/2020 14. 60687/21 Riello v. Italy 03/12/2021 Vittorio RIELLO 1939 Castel Morrone Italian Nadia RIELLO Caserte Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court, R.G. 2877/2020 06/10/2020 03/01/2021 15. 17163/22 Rosa v. Italy 24/03/2022 Giuseppe Michele ROSA 1963 Rome Italian Peter PARLAPIANO Rome Rome District Court, R.G. 67792/2019 19/11/2019 22/11/2019 (Enforced on 29/09/2021)   [1] Date by which the order for possession requires the premises to be vacated and from which the order for possession may be enforced.