SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 34658/97 by E.P. against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President , Mr A.B. Baka, Mr B. Conforti , Mr G. Bonello , Mr P. Lorenzen, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Mr A. Kovler , judges , [Note1]

and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 June 1996 and registered on 29 January 1997,

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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1912 and living in Mercato Sanseverino.

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

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Mercato Sanseverino, which he had let to M.S. in 1974. The lease was due to expire on 31 December 1983, but was extended until 31 December 1987 pursuant to Law No. 392/78.

In a writ served on the tenant on 4 September 1986, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Mercato Sanseverino Magistrate.

By a decision of 30 September 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Mercato Sanseverino Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises  be vacated by 30 June 1989.

On 1 August 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 15 October 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 October 1991.

On 28 October 1991, the bailiff made an attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.

On 18 November 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.

On 18 February 1992, the bailiff asked the local police to provide their assistance in enforcing the order for possession and at the same time suspended the enforcement proceedings until the assistance would be granted.

In the meantime, the applicant alleges to have been given hospitality by his relatives.

At the beginning of 1998, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises.

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. He complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the prolonged impossibility to enforce the Magistrate’s order for possession.

3. The applicant further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his private life was affected on account of his being forced to cohabit with his relatives.

4. The applicant further complains under Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention that he was prevented from remarrying on account of his forced cohabitation with his relatives.

5. The applicant finally complains about an interference with his correspondence, given that he receives his mail at the address of different relatives of his. He invokes Article 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the delay in the enforcement of the order for possession that he had obtained against his tenant.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the impact of the impossibility of repossessing his apartment on his private life. He further complains under Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention that he was prevented from remarrying on account of his forced cohabitation with other members of his family. He finally alleges an interference with his correspondence, given that he receives it at the different addresses of his relatives who give him hospitality.

The Court recalls that the impossibility for an applicant to recover possession of his apartment and thus to live in that apartment may raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention (see the Velosa Barreto v. Portugal judgment of 21 November 1995, Series A no. 334, § 24).

In the present case, however, the Court observes that the applicant, who claims that his private life was affected by his impossibility of repossessing his apartment and by the subsequent need of living with his relatives, made a statutory declaration, on 18 November 1991, that he urgently needed the apartment as accommodation not for himself but for his daughter. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant has failed to prove that he intended to live in the apartment in question and accordingly that the delay in the eviction of the tenant interfered with his private life in such a manner as to raise an issue under Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention.

In conclusion, the Court has examined these complaints but finds that, insofar as they have been substantiated and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms invoked by the applicant.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected under § 4 of the same provision.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints about the delay in the eviction of the tenant;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President

[Note1] Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK ( Shift+Enter ). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)