FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 59537/00 by Delfino SAVIO against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 7 March 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 22 July 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 1911 and living in Chieri (Turin). He is represented before the Court by Mrs M.S. Del Vecchio , a lawyer practising in Turin.

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

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Turin, which he had let to C.V.

In a writ served on the tenant on 5 May 1986, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.

By a decision of 4 June 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 June 1987.

On 16 January 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 25 February 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 March 1991.

On 27 March 1991, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

On 11 May 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 1 June 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 July 1992.

Between 8 July 1992 and 16 October 1998, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.

On 24 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.

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 and about the denial of his right of access to a court.

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