FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 58587/00 by Ferdinando NOBILI MASSUERO against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 1 April 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr E. Levits , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev, judges ,

and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 April 2000,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ferdinando Nobili Massuero, is an Italian national who lives in Rome. He was represented before the Court by Mr F. Spagnolo, a lawyer practising in Rome.

The respondent Government were represented by their successive Agents, respectively Mr U. Leanza and Mr I.M. Braguglia, and by their successive co-Agents, respectively Mr V. Esposito and Mr F. Crisafulli.

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

The applicant's father was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to A.G.

In a registered letter of 5 June 1984, the applicant's father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 July 1987.

In a writ served on the tenant on 4 July 1986, the applicant's father reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. By a decision of 12 February 1987, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 July 1988.

On 4 July 1988, the applicant's father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On an unspecified date the applicant's father informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 September 1988.

Between 16 September 1988 and 7 October 1999, the bailiff made fifty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant's father was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

In the meanwhile, on 9 July 1998, the applicant's father died and the applicant inherited the flat.

On 3 November 1999, the applicant appointed a lawyer in order to be represented in the procedure with the aim of repossessing the flat.

On the same day, the applicant recovered possession of the flat outside the framework of the eviction proceedings in a meeting held between him, his lawyer and the tenant's representative.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings at issue was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his flat .

THE LAW

The Government object that the present application is substantially the same as application no. 30531/96, Nobili Massuero v. Italy , which was struck out of the list of cases of the Court on 9 December 1999.

Furthermore, the Government stress that the applicant, who became heir in 1998 and recovered possession of the flat in 1999, was never a party to the eviction proceedings. Therefore, in the opinion of the Government, the applicant is not a victim within the meaning of the Convention.

Accordingly, the present application should be declared inadmissible under Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

The applicant responds that his father's application was struck out of the list of cases of the Court on the ground that the latter failed to provide the Court with updated and relevant information, this having no relevance on new applications which are not in contrast with previous decisions of the Court.

As regards the first limb of the Government's objection, the Court recalls that under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, it shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 which is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined, provided it contains no relevant new information.

The Court notes that application no. 30531/96, though relating to the same set of proceedings, was lodged by a different applicant , namely by Mr Francesco Nobili Massuero, the father of the actual applicant.

Consequently, the present application cannot be regarded as being substantially the same of the previous one (see, mutatis mutandis, A.G.V.R. v. Netherlands , no. 20060/92, Commission decision of 10 April 1995 and Bobumrealitätenverwertung Gmbh v. Austria , no. 26244/95, Commission decision of 10 September 1997).

It follows that the first limb of the Government's objection must be dismissed.

As regards the second limb of the Government's objection, the Court considers that it must be accepted within the following limits.

The applicant complains that the length of the enforcement proceedings was excessive and in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, whose pertinent part reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The Court observes that the applicant's father died on 9 July 1998, and that the applicant recovered possession of the flat on 3 November 1999.

Nothing in the file suggests that, after the death of his father, the applicant intervened in the proceedings. In this respect, the Court observes that the bailiff continued to attempt to recover possession of the flat concerned in the name of the applicant's father even after his death.

In these circumstances, t he Court shares the Government's view and accordingly considers that the applicant cannot claim to be victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

It follows that this complaint must be rejected as incompatible ratione personae pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

The applicant further complains of his prolonged inability to recover possession of his flat, owing to the lack of police assistance. He alleges a violation of his right of property, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The Court recalls that the applicant was not a party of the eviction proceedings. Furthermore, he only became the owner of the flat on 9 July 1998.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President