SCALERA v. ITALY - 56924/00 [2003] ECHR 595 (13 November 2003)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

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

1. The case originated in an application (no. 56924/00) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian national, Mrs Maria Scalera (“the applicant”), on 22 February 2000.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Pivanti, 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.

5. She is the owner of four flats in Rome, which she had let to P.C., G.F. and R.R., E.T. and S.A..

6. In a writ served on the tenant on 19 November 1990, the applicant informed him of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.

7. By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 15 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.

8. On 1 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

9. On 17 February 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 April 1993.

10. Between 7 April 1993 and 18 November 1999, the bailiff made twenty-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

12. In a registered letter of 14 September 1989, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1990 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.

13. In a writ served on the tenants on 19 November 1990, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Rome Magistrate.

14. By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 17 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 May 1992.

15. On 19 October 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.

16. On 18 December 1992, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 January 1993.

17. Between 8 January 1993 and 6 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

19. In a writ served on the tenant on 19 November 1990, the applicant informed him of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.

20. By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 15 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.

21. On 1 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

22. On 17 February 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 April 1993.

23. Between 7 April 1993 and 24 November 2000, the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

25. In a writ served on the tenant on 20 July 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.

26. By a decision of 17 January 1991, which was made enforceable on 15 April 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1992.

27. On 19 October 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.

28. On 19 December 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 January 1993.

29. Between 8 January 1993 and 6 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

31. Since 1947 the public authorities in Italy have frequently intervened in residential tenancy legislation with the aim of controlling rents. This has been achieved by rent freezes (occasionally relaxed when the Government decreed statutory increases), by the statutory extension of all current leases and by the postponement, suspension or staggering of the enforcement of orders for possession. The relevant domestic law concerning the extension of tenancies, the suspension of enforcement and the staggering of evictions is described in the Court's judgment in the case of Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 18-35, ECHR 1999-V. Lastly, a suspension of the enforcement of the orders for possession until 30 June 2004 was introduced by Legislative Decree no. 147 of 24 June 2003, which became Law no. 200 of 1 August 2003.

32. As regards the control of the rents, the evolution of the Italian legislation may be summarised as follows.

33. The first relevant measure was the Law no. 392 of 27 July 1978 which provided machinery for “fair rents” (the so-called equo canone) on the basis of a number of criteria such as the surface of the flat and its costs of realisation.

34. The second step of the Italian authorities dated August 1992. It was taken in the view of progressive liberalisation of the market of tenancies. Accordingly, a legislation relaxing on rent levels restrictions (the so-called patti in deroga) entered into force. Owners and tenants were in principle given the opportunity to derogate from the rent imposed by law and to agree on a different price.

35. Lastly, Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998 reformed the tenancies and liberalised the rents.

36. The tenant is under a general obligation to refund the owner any damages caused in the case of late restitution of the flat. In this regard, Article 1591 of the Italian Civil Code provides:

“The tenant who fails to vacate the immovable property is under an obligation to pay the owner the agreed amount until the date when he leaves, together with other remaining damages.”

37. However, Law no. 61 of 1989 set out, inter alia, a limit to the compensation claimable by the owner entitling him to a sum equal to the rent paid by the tenant at the time of the expiration of the lease, proportionally increased according to the cost of living (Article 24 of Law no. 392 of 27 July 1978) plus 20%, along the period of inability to dispose of the possession of the flat.

38. In the judgment no. 482 of 2000, the Constitutional Court was called upon to decide whether such a limitation complied with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court held that it was compatible with the Constitution with regard to periods of time during which the suspension of the evictions was determined by law. The Constitutional Court explained that the introduction of that limitation was intended to settle the tenancies of the time of the emergency legislation, when the housing shortage made the suspension of the enforcement necessary. While evictions were suspended ex lege, the law predetermined the quantum of the reimbursement chargeable to the tenant, both measures being temporary and exceptional. Besides, the interests of the owner were counterbalanced by the exemption for him from the burden to prove the damages.

39. The Constitutional Court declared the limitation to the compensation claimable by the owner unconstitutional with regard to cases where the impossibility for the owner to repossess the flat depended on the conduct of the tenant and was not due to a legislative intervention. Accordingly, it opened the way to owners for the institution of civil proceedings in order to obtain full reparation of the damages caused by the tenant.

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 AND OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

40. The applicant complained of her prolonged inability to recover possession of her flats, owing to the lack of police assistance. She alleged a violation of her right of property, as guaranteed by 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.”

41. 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...”

42. The Court has previously examined a number of cases raising issues similar to those 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, §§ 46-75; Lunari v. Italy, no. 21463/93, §§ 34-46, 11 January 2001; Palumbo v. Italy, no. 15919/89, §§ 33-48, 30 November 2000).

43. 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 instance. It notes that the applicant had to wait after the first attempts of the bailiff respectively six years and eight months, seven years, seven years and eight months, seven years and one month before being able to repossess her flats.

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.

“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.”

45. The applicant sought, firstly, reparation for the pecuniary damage she had sustained, which she calculated as follows: 322,169,584 Italian lire (ITL) [166,386.70 euros (EUR)] the sum being the loss of rent for the period from to April 1993 to December 1999 with regards to all the flats of the present application. The applicant submitted this amount as the result of the difference between the market value rent of the four flats and the rent imposed by law received from the tenants. For the purpose of assessing the market value rent, the applicant submitted an expert opinion dated February 2000 which estimates the rent from the year 1992. The applicant also submitted the copy of a letter in which Mrs J.H. proposes her to rent one of the flat at the price of ITL 1,500,000 [EUR 774,69] per month almost equivalent to the estimations of the expert.

47. The Court considers that the applicant must be awarded compensation for the pecuniary damage resulting from the loss of rent for the period of time related to the violations found.

Having regard to the means of calculation proposed by the applicant and in the light of the evidence before it and the period concerned, it decides to award on an equitable basis EUR 87,800 under this head.

50. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her EUR 3,000 under this head.

51. The applicant also claimed reimbursement of legal costs and expenses as follows:

52. As regards the costs of the enforcement proceedings, the Government contested the claim. As regards the costs and expenses before the Court, the Government did not make any submissions.

53. On the basis of the information in its possession and the Court's case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 6,000 for the costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and EUR 2,000 for the proceedings before the Court.

55. 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.

1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

(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) EUR 87,800 (eighty-seven thousand eight hundred euros) for pecuniary damage;

(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;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 November 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SCALERA v. ITALY - 56924/00 [2003] ECHR 595 (13 November 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2003/595.html Cite as: [2003] ECHR 595