[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> PEZZA v. ITALY - 31525/96 [2002] ECHR 147 (21 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2002/147.html Cite as: [2002] ECHR 147

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF PEZZA v. ITALY

(Application no. 31525/96)

JUDGMENT

(Friendly Settlement)

STRASBOURG

21 February 2002

In the case of Pezza v. Italy,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. ROZAKIS, President,

Mr G. BONELLO,

Mr P. LORENZEN,

Mrs N. VAJIć,

Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA,

Mrs E. STEINER, judges,

Mr G. RAIMONDI, ad hoc judge,

and Mr E. FRIBERGH, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2002,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 31525/96) against the Italian Republic lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian national, Mr L. Pezza (“the applicant”), on 9 November 1995.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr M. Coruzzo, a lawyer practising in Florence. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr U. Leanza, and by their co-agent, Mr V. Esposito.

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

4.  On 25 May 2000, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the Court declared the application admissible.

5.  On 30 November 2001 and on 4 December 2001, the applicant and the Agent of the Government respectively submitted formal declarations proposing a friendly settlement of the case.

THE FACTS

6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which he had let to M.G.L. In a registered letter of 5 February 1982, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1983 or at the latest by 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.

7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 March 1984, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.

8.  By a decision of 16 April 1984, which was made enforceable on 25 June 1984, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 May 1987.

9.  On 24 March 1988 and again on 21 January 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.

10.  On 1 April 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.

11.  On 12 September 1989, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 October 1989.

12.  Between 31 October 1989 and 18 February 1998 the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.

13.  On 4 June 1998, the applicant repossessed the apartment with the assistance of the police.

THE LAW

14.  On 4 December 2001, the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Italy offer to pay 35,000,000 ITL to Mr Luigi Pezza with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application registered under no.31525/96. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months starting from the notification of the judgment delivered by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

This declaration does not entail any acknowledgement by the Government of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the present case.

The Government further undertake not to request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.”

15.  On 30 November 2001, the Court received from the applicant’s representative the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I note that the Government of Italy are prepared to pay a sum totalling 35,000,000 ITL covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs to Mr Luigi Pezza with a view to securing a friendly settlement of application no. 31525/96 pending before the Court.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims in respect of Italy relating to the facts of this application. I declare that the case is definitely settled.

This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicant have reached.

I further undertake not to request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after the delivery of the Court’s judgment.”

16.  The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).

17.  Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1.  Decides to strike the case out of the list;

2.  Takes note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2002, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Erik FRIBERGH Christos ROZAKIS

Registrar President