SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 33948/96 by A.G. against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 16 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President , Mr B. Conforti, 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 11 April 1996 and registered on 22 November 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 applicant is an Italian national, born in 1941 and living in Ceprano .

She is represented before the Court by Mr Luigi Corsetti , a lawyer practising in Ceprano .

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

The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to G.M.

In a writ served on the tenant on 22 March 1984, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. By a decision of 2 November 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 April 1988.

On unspecified dates, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises and informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 January 1991.

Between 10 January 1991 and 25 July 1996, 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.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

By a letter dated 21 July 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicant’s lawyer to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. The applicant’s lawyer replied on 13 September 1999, but he did not provide the Registry of the Court with the relevant information. By a registered letter of 4 January 2000, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for information and warned the applicant’s lawyer that, should such information not be received before 3 February 2000, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 18 January 2000, did not reply.

In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1, c of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in her application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES .

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President