SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 32658/96 by R.E. against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ) sitting on 20 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President , Mr M. Fischbach, Mr B. Conforti, Mr G. Bonello, Mrs V. Strážnická, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Mr E. Levits, judges ,

and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 4 May 1993 by R.E. against Italy and registered on 20 August 1996 under file no. 32658/96;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1964 and living in Milan.

She is represented before the Court by Mr Paolo Giuggioli , a lawyer practising in Milan.

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

Mrs A.P.N. was the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to V.R.

In a writ served on the tenant on 14 January 1984, she communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. By a decision of 1 February 1984, which was made enforceable on 5 March 1984, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 June 1985.

On 26 May 1986, Mrs A.P.N. served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 1 July 1986, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 July 1986.

In the meantime, the applicant had become the owner of the apartment.

Between 29 July 1986 and 21 September 1995, the bailiff made 33 attempts to recover possession.

In the meantime, on 21 January 1991 and again on 28 September 1992, the applicant had made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.

Each attempt to recover possession proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police 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 19 July 1999, the Registry of the Court asked the applicant’s lawyer to provide updated information about the eviction proceedings. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 9 November 1999, the Registry of the Court renewed its request for updated information and warned the applicant’s lawyer that, should such information not be received before 7 December 1999, the Court might decide to strike the case off its case-list. The applicant’s lawyer, who received the said letter on 17 November 1999, 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 his 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