FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 57206/00 by Maria Cristina VIRGULTI against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 February 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mr G. Bonello , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr E. Levits , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 11 February 1999 and registered on 12 May 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 1956 and living in Mentana (Rome). She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Casamassima, a lawyer practising in Rome.

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

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to M.P.

In a writ served on the tenant on 18 February 1985, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.

By a decision of 24 September 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1986.

On 9 July 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 4 August 1986, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 September 1986.

On 16 May 1987 and on 13 May 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.

Between 27 September 1986 and 6 February 1990, the bailiff made twenty-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.

On 14 March 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 30 March 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 April 1990.

Between 10 April 1990 and 16 September 1993, the bailiff made thirty-six 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.

On 4 March 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 14 May 1994, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 May 1994.

Between 19 May 1994 and 14 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-seven 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.

On 15 November 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 and about the denial of her 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.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar President