FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 63833/00 by Steno MONTI 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 lodged on 9 October 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 is an Italian national, born in 1922 and living in Sansepolcro ( Arezzo ). He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Boncompagni , consultant.

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

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which he had let to L.B.

In a registered letter of 20 January 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1993 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.

In a writ served on the tenant on 20 April 1993, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.

By a decision of 12 July 1993, which was made enforceable on 4 August 1993, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1993.

On 10 March 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.

On 27 March 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 May 1995.

Between 30 May 1995 and 7 May 1996, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession.

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

On 2 April 1997, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.

On 23 April 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his children.

On 8 May 1997, he served a second notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 June 1997.

Between 23 June 1997 and 3 September 1998, the bailiff made four 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.

Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, on 31 August 1999, the tenant asked for a suspension of the eviction proceedings.

On 15 December 2000, the Florence Magistrate decided to postpone the eviction proceedings until 11 July 2002.

On 11 July 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment with the assistance of the police.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his inability to recover possession of his 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 he 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