CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 septembre 1995

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. September 1995 Scollo v. Italy - 19133/91 Judgment 28.9.1995 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Owner of a flat unable to have a possession order enforced: violation Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time No enforcement proceedings in strict sense: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Complaints under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right of access to a court) were outside scope of case as defined by Commission's decision on admissibility. II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 A.   Applicable rule Measures in issue constituted not formal or de facto expropriation but control of the use of property - second paragraph therefore applicable. B.   Compliance with the conditions in the second paragraph Wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by legislature as regards implementation of social and economic policies, particularly in field of housing. 1.   Aim of the interference Reasons for legislative provisions in issue could not be described as manifestly unreasonable - pursuit of a legitimate aim in the general interest. 2.   Proportionality of the interference Housing shortages an almost universal problem of modern society. Applicant's "solemn" declaration should have meant that he was given priority for the granting of police assistance to enforce eviction, but Prefect never issued an order to that effect.   Bailiff's attempts wholly unsuccessful.   Priority of applicant's case: his lawyer's efforts to settle the matter speedily came to nothing. Applicant recovered flat when tenant left of his own accord - in the meantime he had been obliged not only to buy another flat but also to bring an action to settle the problem of partly unpaid rent. Legislature reasonably entitled to consider that the emergency measures in issue, which provided for exceptions, were an appropriate means of achieving the legitimate aim pursued.   Restriction on use of flat resulting from non-application of those provisions a disproportionate burden. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ("REASONABLE TIME") No enforcement proceedings in strict sense.   Article 6 § 1 applicable, however, regard being had to purpose of proceedings - to settle dispute between applicant and his tenant. Starting-point: service on tenant of summons to appear before magistrate. End: recovery of the premises. Total: just over eleven years and ten months. Applicant had spared no effort to obtain satisfaction, applying on numerous occasions to the bailiff, who systematically requested police assistance - prefectoral committee and Prefect had never acted on these requests. Account taken of the practical difficulties raised by enforcement of a very large number of evictions, but inertia of competent administrative authorities engaged responsibility of the State under Article 6 § 1. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Award of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. B.   Costs and expenses Reimbursed in full. Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sums in respect of damage and costs and expenses (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes