FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 60391/00 by Elisabetta POLLIFRONE against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 10 October 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr E. Levits , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application on 30 March 1999,

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 1962 and living in Livorno . Sh e is represented before the Court by Mrs M. Danieli , a lawyer practising in Livorno .

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

The applicant’s grandmother was the owner of an apartment in Livorno , which she had let to I.B.C.

In a registered letter of 6 May 1987, the applicant’s grandmother informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 1 January 1988 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.

The tenant told the applicant’s grandmother that she would not leave the premises and she fell in rent arrears.

In a writ served on the tenant on 11 July 1989, the applicant’s grandmother reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.

By a decision of 31 July 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 January 1991.

On 9 August 1991, the applicant’s grandmother died and the applicant inherited the apartment.

On 6 November 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.

On 22 January 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1992.

On 12 November 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.

Between 19 February 1992 and 3 October 2000, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession.

Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.

In the meanwhile, on 10 July 1997, the applicant made a second statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.

On an unspecified date of June 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her inability to recover possession of her apartment amounted to a violation of the right to property.

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

The Government argue that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies on the grounds that she failed to challenge the refusal of police assistance before the administrative courts.

The Court recalls that it has already dismissed this objection in the Immobiliare Saffi case (see the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 40-42, ECHR 1999-V). The Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding. This objection should therefore be rejected.

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.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President