FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 59452/00 by Mirella DELLA ROCCA against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 13 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr G. Bonello , 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 12 August 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 1947 and living in Naples. Sh e is represented before the Court by Mr P. d’Alessio , a lawyer practising in Naples.

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

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Casoria (Naples), which she had let to A.I.

In a writ served on the tenant on 14 December 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Casoria Magistrate (Naples).

By a decision of 22 January 1988, which was made enforceable on 31 September 1988, the Casoria Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 22 February 1989.

On 15 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 3 April 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 April 1990.

Between 12 April 1990 and 30 November 1999, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

On 6 December 1999, 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