Information Note on the Court’s case-law 6

May 1999

Marzari v. Italy (dec.) - 36448/97

Decision 4.5.1999 [Section II]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Obligation for local authorities to provide a disabled person with adequate housing: inadmissible

The applicant, who suffers from a serious disease, has been recognised as 100% disabled. He was evicted from an apartment he had adapted to his condition . The local authorities allocated him a second apartment to which he reluctantly moved, considering that it did not meet his needs. A provincial law was enacted, which specified that the authorities had to provide 100% disabled persons with adequate housin g. The applicant stopped paying his rent as a protest against the local authorities, in order to obtain the necessary modifications to his apartment. As a result, the authorities started proceedings for eviction in 1993. The authorities concurrently submit ted to the applicant plans for the payment of the arrears in several instalments, which he refused. His eviction from the second apartment was regularly postponed on account of his condition, but finally took place in 1998. He went to live in a camper van, but had to be hospitalised, his health having deteriorated because of the unsuitable character of such accommodation. The hospital authorities stressed the urgency of finding a solution to his housing problem, the hospital not having the necessary facilit ies to keep him any longer. A specialised health commission found, upon the authorities’ request, a suitable apartment, which was consequently allocated to the applicant. He refused it, but was nonetheless discharged from hospital;  he was to be removed by the police.

Inadmissible under Article 8: Although this provision does not guarantee the right to have one’s housing problem solved by the authorities, a refusal to provide assistance in this respect to an individual suffering from a serious disease might in certain circumstances raise an issue because of the impact of such a refusal on the private life of the individual. The applicant’s eviction interfered with his right to private life. It was prescribed by Italian law and to the extent that it was aimed at recovering possession of the second apartment, the rent of which the applicant had stopped paying, the eviction had the legitimate purpose of protecting the rights of others. However relevant his serious condition was, considerable weight has to be giv en to the fact that the local authorities postponed his eviction from 1993 to 1998 and that he showed no signs of cooperation at all, refusing all proposals of settlement made by the authorities. Thus, there was no breach of the present provision as regard s the eviction from the second apartment. As to the alleged failure to provide the applicant with adequate accommodation after his eviction from the second flat, the local authorities requested a specialised health commission to find a suitable apartment. The applicant refused the apartment selected by the commission and allocated by the authorities, claiming it was not adapted to his needs. However, it is not for the Court to review the decisions taken by the local authorities that were based on the assess ment of a specialised health commission as to the allocation of the third apartment. No positive obligation for the local authorities can be inferred from Article 8 to provide the applicant with a specific apartment: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of E urope/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes