CASE OF C. SPA v. ITALY
Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award
Christos Rozakis
8. The applicant is a company based in Lainate. 9. In 1987, it became the owner of several flats in Milan, which had all been leased by the previous owner. 10. In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. 11. By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990. 12. On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 13. On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990. 14. Between 8 June 1990 and 8 November 1999, the bailiff made thirty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 15. On 19 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat. 16. In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. 17. By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1989. 18. On 20 November 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 19. On 10 December 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 January 1991. 20. Between 4 January 1991 and 11 November 1997, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 21. In March 1998, the tenant vacated the premises. 22. In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. 23. By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990. 24. On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 25. On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990. 26. Between 8 June 1990 and 11 April 2000, the bailiff made thirty-eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 27. On an unspecified date, the applicant recovered possession of the flat. 28. In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. 29. By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990. 30. On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 31. On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990. 32. Between 8 June 1990 and 8 November 1999, the bailiff made thirty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 33. In June 1998, the tenant vacated the premises. 34. In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. 35. By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990. 36. On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 37. On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990. 38. Between 8 June 1990 and 1 February 2000, the bailiff made thirty-eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 39. On an unspecified date, the applicant recovered possession of the flat. 40. 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.