8.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Milan. 9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 10.  Stelios company was the owner of an apartment in Milan which it had let to E.T. 11.  In a registered letter sent in December 1990, Stelios informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 September 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date. 12.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 March 1991, Stelios reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. 13.  By a decision of 4 April 1991, which was made enforceable on 30 June 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by the same date. 14.  On 15 December 1992, the applicant became the owner of the apartment and pursued the enforcement proceedings. 15.  On 15 November 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 16.  On 25 January 1994, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 February 1994. 17.  In a registered letter of 13 March 1995, the applicant proposed negotiations to the tenant in order to settle their dispute, but they failed. 18.  Between 11 February 1994 and 15 March 1999, the bailiff made seventeen attempts to recover possession. 19.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 20.  On 14 December 1999, the enforcement of the order for possession was suspended pursuant Section 6 of Law no. 431/98 and set for 12 May 2000. 21.  On 9 May 2000 and 13 June 2000, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession. 22.  Later in June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.