SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 34999/97 by C. against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 4 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President , Mr A.B. Baka, Mr B. Conforti, Mr G. Bonello, Mrs V. Stráznická, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, 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 16 September 1996 and registered on 20 February 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 a company based in Lainate .

It is represented before the Court by Mr Bruno Dell’Acqua , a lawyer practising in Legnano .

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

In 1987, the applicant became the owner of several apartments in Milan, which had all been leased by the previous owner.

1) Proceedings against C.F.C.

In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990.

On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990.

Between 8 June 1990 and 9 November 1999, the bailiff made 35 attempts to recover possession, on 8 June 1990, 11 October 1990, 13 December 1990, 18 March 1991, 8 July 1991, 22 October 1991, 18 December 1991, 19 February 1992, 12 May 1992, 12 September 1992, 12 October 1992, 15 February 1993, 26 April 1993, 16 September 1993, 30 November 1993, 8 February 1994, 18 April 1994, 23 June 1994, 25 October 1994, 31 January 1995, 21 April 1995, 30 June 1995, 19 October 1995, 25 January 1996, 11 April 1996, 25 June 1996, 20 November 1996, 8 July 1997, 11 November 1997, 19 May 1997, 28 July 1998, 9 October 1998, 12 January 1999, 21 September 1999 and 9 November 1999.

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

2) Proceedings against A.D.P.

In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990.

On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990.

Between 8 June 1990 and 8 November 1999, the bailiff made 35 attempts to recover possession, on 8 June 1990, 11 October 1990, 13 December 1990, 18 March 1991, 8 July 1991, 22 October 1991, 18 December 1991, 19 February 1992, 12 May 1992, 12 September 1992, 12 October 1992, 15 February 1993, 26 April 1993, 16 September 1993, 30 November 1993, 8 February 1994, 18 April 1994, 23 June 1994, 25 October 1994, 31 January 1995, 21 April 1995, 30 June 1995, 19 October 1995, 25 January 1996, 11 April 1996, 25 June 1996, 19 November 1996, 8 July 1997, 11 November 1997, 19 May 1998, 8 July 1998, 26 October 1998, 12 January 1999, 21 September 1999 and 8 November 1999.

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

3) Proceedings against V.D.

In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990.

On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990.

Between 8 June 1990 and 8 November 1999, the bailiff made 34 attempts to recover possession, on 8 June 1990, 11 October 1990, 13 December 1990, 18 March 1991, 8 July 1991, 22 October 1991, 18 December 1991, 19 February 1992, 12 May 1992, 12 September 1992, 12 October 1992, 15 February 1993, 26 April 1993, 16 September 1993, 30 November 1993, 8 February 1994, 18 April 1994, 23 June 1994, 25 October 1994, 31 January 1995, 21 April 1995, 30 June 1995, 19 October 1995, 25 January 1996, 11 April 1996, 25 June 1996, 19 November 1996, 8 July 1997, 11 November 1997, 19 May 1998, 8 July 1998, 26 October 1998, 15 January 1999 and 8 November 1999.

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

4) Proceedings against J.D.

In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1989.

On 20 November 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 10 December 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 January 1991.

Between 4 January 1991 and 11 November 1997, the bailiff made 27 attempts to recover possession, on 4 January 1991, 25 February 1991, 23 July 1991, 22 October 1991, 19 December 1991, 19 February 1992, 12 May 1992, 22 September 1992, 10 December 1992, 15 February 1992, 26 April 1993, 16 September 1993, 30 November 1993, 8 February 1994, 18 April 1994, 23 June 1994, 25 October 1994, 31 January 1995, 21 April 1995, 30 June 1995, 19 October 1995, 25 January 1996, 11 April 1996, 25 June 1996, 19 November 1996, 8 July 1997 and 11 November 1997.

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

In March 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.

5) Proceedings against V.L.

In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990.

On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990.

Between 8 June 1990 and 25 October 1999, the bailiff made 36 attempts to recover possession, on 8 June 1990, 11 October 1990, 13 December 1990, 18 March 1991, 8 July 1991, 22 October 1991, 18 December 1991, 19 February 1992, 12 May 1992, 12 September 1992, 12 October 1992, 15 February 1993, 26 April 1993, 16 September 1993, 30 November 1993, 8 February 1994, 18 April 1994, 23 June 1994, 25 October 1994, 31 January 1995, 21 April 1995, 30 June 1995, 19 October 1995, 25 January 1996, 11 April 1996, 25 June 1996, 19 November 1996, 8 July 1997, 11 November 1997, 19 May 1998, 28 July 1998, 26 October 1996, 15 January 1999, 6 July 1999, 9 September 1999 and 25 October 1999.

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

6) Proceedings against C.M..

In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990.

On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 1 August 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 September 1990.

Between 21 September 1990 and 12 May 1992, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

In November 1992, the tenant vacated the premises.

7) Proceedings against S.T.

In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990.

On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990.

Between 8 June 1990 and 18 March 1991, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

In December 1991, the tenant vacated the premises.

8) Proceedings against F.B.

In a writ served on the tenant on 5 April 1989, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 12 April 1989, which was made enforceable on 14 April 1989, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 October 1989.

On 5 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 27 April 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 May 1990.

Between 18 May 1990 and 15 February 1993, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

On 19 February 1993, the tenant vacated the premises.

9) Proceedings against D.V. & C. s.r.l .

In a writ served on the tenant on 4 April 1989, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 12 April 1989, which was made enforceable on 19 April 1989, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 October 1989.

On 4 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.

On 27 April 1990, it served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 May 1990.

Between 18 May 1990 and 15 February 1993, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

On 19 February 1993, the tenants vacated the premises.

10) Proceedings against A.T.

In a writ served on the tenant on 5 April 1989, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 12 April 1989, which was made enforceable on 19 April 1989, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1990.

On 18 October 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On an unspecified date, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 December 1990.

Between 14 December 1990 and 12 May 1992, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

On 19 February 1993, the tenant vacated the premises.

11) Proceedings against N.C.T. s.n.c .

In a writ served on the tenant on 14 April 1989, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 24 April 1989, which was made enforceable on 26 April 1989, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1989.

On 10 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring it to vacate the premises.

On 27 April 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing it that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 May 1990.

Between 18 May 1990 and 15 February 1993, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

On 19 February 1993, the tenant vacated the premises.

12) Proceedings against G.M. .

In a writ served on the tenant on 2 May 1989, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 22 June 1989, which was made enforceable on 28 June 1989, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 March 1990.

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

On 13 December 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 January 1991.

Between 4 January 1991 and 12 May 1992, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession.

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

On 30 September 1992, the tenant vacated the premises.

13) Proceedings against F.B.

In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.

By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990.

On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990.

Between 8 June 1990 and 8 February 1994 the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

In April 1994, the tenant vacated the premises

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains about its prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of its apartments.

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

THE LAW

The applicant complains about its prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of its thirteen apartments. It further complains about the duration of the relevant eviction proceedings.

1. As regards the proceedings concerning tenants C.M., S.T., F.B., D.V. & C. s.r.l ., A.T., N.C.T., G.M. and F.B. (listed under nos 6 to 13 above), the Court observes that the relevant apartments were released between December 1991 and April 1994 and that the proceedings thus ended more than six months before the introduction of the present application on 16 September 1996.

It follows that this part of the application was not introduced within the six month period provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

2. As regards the proceedings concerning tenants C.F.C., A.D.P. , V.D. , J.D. and V.L. (listed under nos. 1 to 5), 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 of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the application in so far as it concerns the proceedings listed under nos. 1 to 5;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President