FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 42357/98 by Mariantonia SARTORELLI against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 14 November 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs F. Tulkens , President ,

Mr P. Lorenzen ,

Mrs N. Vajić , Mr E. Levits , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 June 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

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 is an Italian national, born in 1931 and living in Milan. Sh e is represented before the Court by Mr M.Corradi , a lawyer practising in Piacenza .

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

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to W.V.

In a registered letter of 10 September 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 23 March 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.

In a writ served on the tenant on 17 November 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 14 December 1992, which was made enforceable on 8 January 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 14 December 1993.

On 21 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 11 January 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 February 1995.

Between 10 February 1995 and 10 December 2001, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession.

Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

On 10 January 2002, following the voluntary surrender of the tenant, the applicant recovered possession of her flat.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.

The Court has also examined the application under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The Government maintain that the measures in question amount to a control of the use of property which pursues the legitimate aim of avoiding the social tensions and troubles to public order that would occur if a considerable number of orders for possession were to be enforced simultaneously. In their opinion, the interference with the applicant’s property rights was not disproportionate; therefore, there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

As to the length of the enforcement proceedings, the Government submit that the delay in granting police assistance is justified on grounds of the order of priorities established according to public-safety requirements.

In any event, the Government stress that following the entry into force of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the Prefect is no longer competent to determine the order of priority for the enforcement of the evictions. The date of enforcement should now be set by the District Court.

The Court considers that the application raises complex and serious issues which require a determination on the merits. It follows that it cannot be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Søren Nielsen Françoise T ulkens              Deputy Registrar President