SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 31012/96 by Daniela SAVIO against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) , sitting on 29 June 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President , Mr A.B. Baka, Mr B. Conforti, Mr G. Bonello, 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 February 1996 and registered on 15 April 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 1957 and living in Padova .

She is represented before the Court by Mr Paolo Giacomazzo , a lawyer practising in Padova .

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 Padova , which she had let to F.C.

In a registered letter of 4 July 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.

In a writ served on the tenant on 6 September 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Padova Magistrate.

By a decision of 19 September 1989, which was made enforceable on 26 September 1989, the Padova Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.

On 20 April 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 8 June 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 July 1993.

Between 17 July 1993 and 27 February 1995 the bailiff made 5 attempts to recover possession, on 17 July 1993, 11 December 1993, 11 April 1994, 24 September 1994 and 27 February 1995.

Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.

Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, in order to avoid useless costs, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.

On 7 December 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.

On 23 January 1998, the tenant vacated the apartment.

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 about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment.

2. The applicant further complains about the duration of the eviction proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that her inability to recover possession of her 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 ...”

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.

The applicant argues that the impossibility to repossess her apartment during more than five years from the date set by the magistrate for the vacation of the premises amounts to a violation of her right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

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 applicant argues that the delay in the enforcement of the order issued by the Padova Magistrate violates Article 6 of the Convention.

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