4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and live in Rome. 5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to L.E. 6.  In a registered letter of 23 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. 7.  The tenant told the applicant that she would not leave the premises. 8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 5 February 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. 9.  By a decision of 4 April 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 August 1986. 10.  On 21 July 1986, invoking articles 10 and 11 of Law No. 84/82, the tenant asked for a postponement of the eviction proceedings and then the Rome Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 May 1987. 11.  On 3 July 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. 12.  On 22 July 1987, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 September 1987. 13.  Between 18 September 1987 and 9 March 2000, the bailiff made fifty-five 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. 14.  In the meanwhile, on 27 February 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself. 15.  On 9 July 1999, pursuant to article 6 of Law No. 431/98, the tenant asked the Rome Magistrate to suspend the eviction proceedings. Consequently, the Rome Magistrate suspended the proceedings until 15 January 2000. 16.  On 22 March 2000, the applicant sold the flat to the tenant.