SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 30918/96 by Annalisa GIMIGLIANO against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) , sitting on 22 June 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President , Mr A.B. Baka, Mr B. Conforti, Mr P. Lorenzen, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Mr E. Levits, 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 13 November 1995 and registered on 1 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 1951 and living in Florence.

She is represented before the Court by Nino and Massimo Gimigliano , lawyers in Catanzaro .

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 Florence, which she had let to N.B. and M.L.

In a writ served on the tenants on 26 July 1986, the applicant informed them that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1986 and summoned them to appear before the Florence Magistrate.

By a decision of 13 October 1986, which was made enforceable on 23 October 1986, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.

On 9 March 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.

On 12 May 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.

On 31 May 1989, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 June 1989.

Between 15 June 1989 and 13 November 1996, the bailiff made 19 attempts to recover possession, on 15 June 1989, 17 October 1989, 10 January 1990, 23 March 1990, 28 June 1990, 11 October 1990, 8 March 1991, 18 November 1991, 16 June 1992, 11 January 1993, 12 October 1993, 31 March 1994, 20 October 1994, 20 March 1995, 28 June 1995, 10 November 1995, 21 March 1996, 23 October 1996 and 13 November 1996.

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

On 7 December 1996, the applicant repossessed the apartment with the assistance of the police.

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 eight years from the issue of the order for possession 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 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

[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.)