Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Massimo ROSA v. ITALY - 36249/97 [2003] ECHR 181 (17 April 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2003/181.html
Cite as: [2003] ECHR 181
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
(Application no. 36249/97)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 April 2003
FINAL
17/07/2003
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Massimo Rosa v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. ROZAKIS, President,
Mrs F. TULKENS,
Mr P. LORENZEN,
Mrs N. VAJIć,
Mr E. LEVITS,
Mr A. KOVLER, judges,
Mrs M. DEL TUFO, ad hoc judge,
and Mr S. NIELSEN, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 March 2003,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 36249/97) 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 Massimo Rosa (“the applicant”), on 28 October 1996.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr P. Parlapiano, a lawyer practising in Rome. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr U. Leanza, and by their successive co-agents, respectively Mr V. Esposito and Mr F. Crisafulli.
3. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been unable to recover possession of his flat within a reasonable time. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he further complained about the length of the eviction proceedings.
4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).
5. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court. Mr V. Zagrebelsky, the judge elected in respect of Italy, withdrew from sitting in the case. The Government appointed Mrs M. del Tufo as ad hoc judge to sit in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 2).
6. On 4 October 2001 the Court declared the application admissible.
7. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
8. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Rome.
9. The applicant is the owner of a flat in Rome, which had been let to M.R.
10. In a writ served on the tenant on 16 September 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
11. By a decision of 11 March 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 July 1992.
12. On 22 September 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13. On 22 October 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 November 1992.
14. On 21 November 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
15. Between 27 November 1992 and 11 March 1997, the bailiff made twelve 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.
16. On 8 April 1997, the applicant repossessed the premises.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
17. The relevant domestic law is described in the Court’s judgment in the case of Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 18-35, ECHR 1999-V.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 AND ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
18. The applicant complained that he had been unable to recover possession of his flat within a reasonable time owing to the lack of police assistance. He alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
19. The applicant also alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
20. The Court has on several previous occasions decided cases raising similar issues as in the present case and found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi, cited above, §§ 46-66; Lunari v. Italy, no. 21463/93, 11 January 2001, §§ 34-46; Palumbo v. Italy, no. 15919/89, 30 November 2000, §§ 33-47).
21. The Court has examined the present case and finds that there are no facts or arguments from the Government, which would lead to any different conclusion in this case. The Court refers to its detailed reasons in the judgments cited above and notes that in this case the applicant has had to wait more than four years and four months after the first attempt of the bailiff before repossessing the flat.
22. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
23. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary damage
24. The applicant sought reparation for the pecuniary damage he had sustained, which he put at 26,400,000 Italian lire (ITL) [13,634 euros (EUR)], being the loss of rent for the period from July 1994 (when he rented a flat where to live with his wife) to April 1997, date of repossessing of his own flat and 1,500,000 ITL [EUR 775] for the costs of executing the possession order.
25. The Government argued that the costs of the proceedings on the merits were not related to the alleged violations and that the costs incurred during the enforcement stage were due only for the period that was regarded as being a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right of property.
26. The Court considers that the applicant must be awarded compensation for the pecuniary damage resulting from the loss of rent (see Immobiliare Saffi cited above, § 79). Having regard to the means of calculation proposed by the applicant, the Court, in the light of the evidence before it and the period concerned, decides to award on an equitable basis EUR 6,000.
As regards the costs of the enforcement proceedings, the Court considers that they must be reimbursed in part (see the Scollo v. Italy judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-C, p. 56, § 50). Accordingly, it decides to award on an equitable basis EUR 700.
The Court awards a total sum of EUR 6,700 for pecuniary damage.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
27. The applicant claimed ITL 10,000,000 [EUR 5,165] for non-pecuniary damage.
28. The Government stressed that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged violation.
29. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage, which the mere finding of a violation cannot adequately compensate. Therefore, the Court decides, on an equitable basis, to award EUR 5,000 under this head.
C. Costs and expenses
30. The applicant sought reimbursement of his legal costs, which he put at ITL 5,255,000 [EUR 2,714] for his costs and expenses before the Court.
31. According to the Court’s case-law, an award can be made in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, ECHR 1999-V, § 30). In the present case, on the basis of the information in its possession and the above-mentioned criteria, the Court considers that EUR 1,500 is a reasonable sum and awards the applicant that amount.
D. Default interest
32. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgement becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) 6,700 EUR (six thousand seven hundred euros) for pecuniary damage;
(ii) 5,000 EUR (five thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) 1,500 EUR (one thousand five hundred euros) for legal costs.
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 April 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren NIELSEN Christos ROZAKIS
Deputy Registrar President