Search
document

Document text Analytics

RINALDI v. ITALY

Doc ref: 22419/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2723

Document date: March 5, 1996

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

RINALDI v. ITALY

Doc ref: 22419/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2723

Document date: March 5, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 22419/93

by Vittoria RINALDI

against Italy

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in

private on 5 March 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 8 May 1993 by

Vittoria RINALDI against Italy and registered on 5 August 1993 under file

No. 22419/93;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the

Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

28 April 1995 and the failure by the applicant to submit

observations in reply;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1935 and currently

residing in Salerno.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant owns an apartment in Salerno, which she let in 1970

at a low rent, according to the relevant legislation on rent control

("equo canone").

On 7 April 1986, she gave notice ("disdetta") to the sitting tenant

to quit on expiry of the lease on 31 December 1986, since she was in need

of the apartment for her daughter. The tenant refused to leave the

apartment.

As a consequence of the above refusal, the applicant brought an

action against the tenant; by judgment of 27 May 1987, the Salerno

magistrate (Pretore) confirmed the eviction with effect from

31 December 1986, and fixed the date of 30 April 1989 for its

enforcement.

On 10 January 1990, the applicant served on the tenant the order

("precetto") to vacate the apartment, together with the accompanying

solemn declaration that she was in urgent need of the apartment for her

daughter. According to the relevant legislation, such a declaration gives

the landlord priority in the grant of the assistance of the police in

enforcing the eviction.

Nevertheless, and despite seven requests addressed to the Prefect

of Salerno, the assistance of the police was not granted and, as a

consequence, numerous attempts by a bailiff to evict the tenant were

unsuccessful.

Only in late 1993 the applicant was granted the assistance of the

police, and succeeded in enforcing the eviction.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that for many years she has not been able

to evict the tenant from her apartment, despite the enforceable judgment

and her urgent need of the apartment.

She alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol N° 1.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 8 May 1993 and registered on

5 August 1993.

On 11 January 1995, the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (a)

of the Rules of Procedure.

The Government's observations were submitted on 28 April 1995, after

an extension of the time-limit. The applicant was invited to make

submissions in reply by 26 June 1995. Further to the applicant's failure

to respond, the Secretariat warned her by registered letter dated

27 November 1995 that in the absence of any response the Commission might

proceed to an examination of the case as it stood or even proceed to

strike the case from its list. The applicant did not reply.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission recalls that the applicant has failed to submit

observations in reply to the Government and has not replied to a

registered letter from the Secretariat, in which she was warned of the

possibility that the case might be struck from the list.

In these circumstances, the Commission finds that, having regard to

Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the applicant has lost interest

in her application and no longer intends to pursue it before the

Commission. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine,

the Commission finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human

rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the

examination of the application.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant