SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 31927/96 by Serafino SERLENGA and 2 Others against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 27 April 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President , Mr M. Fischbach, Mr P. Lorenzen, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Mr A.B. Baka, 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 7 March 1996 and registered on 17 June 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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Italian nationals living in Turin and Collegno respectively. The second applicant is the son of the first applicant. The third applicant is the girlfriend of the second applicant.

They are represented before the Court by Mr Paolo Garetto , a lawyer practising in Turin.

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

The first applicant is the owner of an apartment in Turin, which he had let to G.G.

In a registered letter of 19 March 1990, the first applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1990 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.

In a writ served on the tenant on 1 March 1991, the first applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.

By a decision of 25 March 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 25 March 1992.

On 17 September 1992, the first applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for the second applicant, who planned to marry the third applicant.

On 23 September 1992, the first applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

On 21 October 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 December 1992.

Between 11 December 1992 and 23 October 1998, the bailiff made 18 attempts to recover possession, on 11 December 1992, 23 March 1993, 20 September 1994, 20 December 1994, 22 March 1995, 13 October 1995, 16 January 1996, 10 September 1996, 30 April 1996, 10 September 1996, 11 December 1996, 14 March 1997, 13 June 1997, 25 September 1997, 13 January 1998, 17 April 1998, 21 July 1998 and 23 October 1998.

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

At the beginning of January 1999, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain about the prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of the first applicant’s apartment.

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

THE LAW

The applicants complain about the prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of the first applicant’s apartment. They further complain about the duration of the eviction proceedings.

In so far as the first applicant is concerned, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government.

As regards the second and the third applicants, the Court recalls that, pursuant Article 34 of the Convention, individuals applying to the Court must allege to be the “victim” of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention or in the Protocols thereto.

In the present case the Court observes that the second and the third applicants have no title over the apartment. It is true that the first applicant had made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for the second applicant, who planned to get married with the third applicant. However, such a declaration did not confer on the second or third applicant any title over the apartment, nor did it render them parties to the enforcement proceedings.

Therefore, the Court considers that the second and third applicants cannot claim to be “victims”, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of the alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 of the Convention.

It follows that, in so far as the second and the third applicants are concerned, the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the application insofar as it concerns the first applicant;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Greffier Président