SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 33376/96 by Renato FOLLIERO against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) , sitting on 22 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr G. Bonello , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr E. Levits , Mr A. Kovler , judges ,

and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 July 1996 and registered on 7 October 1996,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

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 1927 and living in Naples.He is represented before the Court by Mr Giovanni Romano, a lawyer practising in Benevento.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which he had let to R.T.

In a writ served on the tenant on 15 July 1988, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.

By a provisional decision of 20 January 1989, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit, ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 January 1990 and declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case.

On 22 February 1989, the applicant resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court. By a judgment of 14 April 1994, the court declared that the lease was terminated as of 31 December 1987 and confirmed the date of vacation indicated by the Magistrate. The judgment was made enforceable on 2 September 1994.

On 1 April 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 21 April 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 May 1995.

Between 30 May 1995 and 21 September 1999, the bailiff made 12 attempts to recover possession, on 30 May 1995, 16 November 1995, 4 April 1996, 4 July 1996, 19 November 1996, 18 March 1997, 30 June 1997, 11 November 1997, 5 February 1998, 4 May 1998, 16 July 1999 and 21 September 1999.

Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

Pursuant to Section of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic law is described in the judgment Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, 28.7.99, §§ 18-35, ECHR-V.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the duration of the eviction proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that his inability to recover possession of his apartment amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings. Article 6 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

On the merits, 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.

As to the length of the enforcement proceedings, the Government maintain that the delay in providing the assistance of the police is justified by the protection of the public interest.

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