[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> DEL BEATO v. ITALY - 41427/98 [2003] ECHR 136 (3 April 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2003/136.html Cite as: [2003] ECHR 136

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF DEL BEATO v. ITALY

(Application no. 41427/98)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

3 April 2003

FINAL

03/07/2003

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 Del Beato 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,

Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA,

Mr A. KOVLER, judges,

Mr L. FERRARI BRAVO, ad hoc judge,

and Mr S. NIELSEN, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 March 2003,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 41427/98) 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, Mrs Caterina Del Beato (“the applicant”), on 8 July 1997.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr F. Imparato, a lawyer practising in Naples. 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 she had been unable to recover possession of her flat within a reasonable time. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, she 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 Second 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 (Rule 28). The Government appointed Mr L. Ferrari Bravo as ad hoc judge to sit in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 2).

6.  On 13 September 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 1953 and lives in Naples.

9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to L.P.

10.  In a writ of 31 January 1984 , the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.

11.  On 31 April 1984, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.

12.  In a writ served on the tenant on 30 May 1984, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.

13.  By a decision of 5 March 1986, which was made enforceable on 7 March 1990, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 5 September 1987.

14.  On 4 May 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 July 1990.

15.  On 6 May 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.

16.  Between 27 July 1990 and 6 December 1994, the bailiff made thirteen 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.

17.  On 4 January 1995, the Naples Magistrate served notice to quit on the tenant, informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 March 1995.

18.  On 28 January 1997, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

19.  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

20.  The applicant complained that she had been unable to recover possession of her flat within a reasonable time owing to the lack of police assistance. She 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.”

21.  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...”

22.  The Court has on several previous occasions decided on 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).

23.  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 been waiting for approximately six years and six months after the first attempt of the bailiff to repossess the flat.

24.  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

25.  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

26.  The applicant sought reparation for the pecuniary damage she had sustained, which she put at 70,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) [36,151.98 euros (EUR)], being the loss of rent for the period from 31 January 1984, under the legislation relaxing restrictions on rent levels, to 28 January 1997, date on which the applicant recovered the apartment.

27.  The Government stressed that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence of the pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged violation.

28.  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 9,000.

B.  Non-pecuniary damage

29.  The applicant sought reparation for non-pecuniary damage. She left the matter to be assessed by the Court in an equitable manner.

30.  The Government stressed that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged violation.

31.  The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage, which the mere finding of a violation cannot adequately compensate. The Court decides to award on an equitable basis EUR 6,000 under this head.

C.  Costs and expenses

32.  The applicant sought reimbursement of legal costs, which she put at ITL 11,356,688 [5,865.24 EUR] for costs and expenses before the Court.

33.  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 (Bottazzi v. Italy, no. 34884/97, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-V, § 30). In the present case, on the basis of the information in its possession and the above-mentioned criteria, the Court decides to award on an equitable basis EUR 2,000 under this head.

D.  Default interest

34.  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 judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:

(i)  9,000 EUR (nine thousand euros) for pecuniary damage;

(ii)   6,000 EUR (six thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage;

(iii)  2,000 EUR (two thousand euros) for legal costs and expenses;

(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 3 April 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Søren NIELSEN Christos ROZAKIS

Deputy Registrar President