6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Rome. 7.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to R.B. 8.  In a registered letter of 31 December 1990, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 November 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. 9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 February 1992, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. 10.  By a decision of 8 July 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 be vacated by 30 May 1994. 11.  Pursuant to Law no. 359/92 the expiry of the term was extended for two years from 30 November 1993 to 30 November 1995. 12.  Nonetheless, on 4 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. 13.  On 30 November 1994, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1994. 14.  Between 15 December 1994 and 10 October 1995, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. In the meanwhile, the tenant fell in rent arrears. 15.  On 6 April 1995, pursuant to Law no. 61/89, the applicant asked the Rome Magistrate to suspend the extension of the expiry of the term and asked to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. The Rome Magistrate refused to grant the assistance of the police. 16.  Therefore, the applicant decided to restart the eviction proceedings. 17.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 November 1995, the applicant informed her of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate. 18.  By a decision of 28 March 1996, 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 15 January 1997. 19.  On 20 February 1997, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. 20.  On 9 May 1997, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 May 1997. 21.  Between 20 May 1997 and 15 October 1998, the bailiff made seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 22.  The eviction proceedings having been suspended pursuant to Law no. 431/1998, on 8 September 1999 the applicant served a second order to vacate the premises. 23.  On 29 September 1999, a second notice was served on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 October 1999. 24.  After two attempts, on 3 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.