(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised asr follows : The applicant is an Italian national born on ** 1952 at Cagliari (Italy) . He, resides in Rome and has a legal practice in Naples . Since 29 December 1978 the applicant has been the owner of a flat in Naples, which he let to its present tenant. Following his marriage on 5 October 1980, the applicant, who had rente danotherflat,tokprocedingsagainsthistenantohavetheleaseterminatedand l secure the use of his flat . In particular, he submitted that he needed to have the use! of his flat in order to live there . His application was dismissed by the court of first instance in a decision ofl 19 April 1982. The decision was set aside on 6 April 1983 by decision of the Naples' court, which granted him the termination of the lease and gave the tenant notice tof quit by 13 April 1984 . This decision became fmal, but before it could be enforced, emergencyj legislative measures were taken for the areas affected by the 1980 and 19841 earthquakes, including Naples . For instance, Act No . 637 of 10 November 1983 suspendéd the execution of~ eviction orders until 30 June 1984 . Meanwhile, the tenant appealed to the enforcing court which, by order of~ 30 March 1984, set the eviction date at 13 November 1984. 210 The evietion was again postpoaed in accordance with Act No . 363 of 24 July 4 suspending eviction orders until 31 December 1984 .UnderLegislativeDecreNo . 793 of 29 November i.984, the time-limits fo r execution of eviction orders were again extended to 31) June 1985. Thesame date was stipulated in Legislative Decree No . 12 of 7 February 1985 Act No. 118 of 5 April 1985 . The Legislative Decree of 27 June 1985 stipulated a further suspension of tion drders until 31 Deceinber 1985 . Theapplicant was obliged to leave Naples because the Flat which he was n,nting by then too small for hiaiself, his wife and their Iwo children, and he had not found other suitable accornmodation in Naples at a price he c:oùldâfford. The applicant complains that the aforementioned provisions suspending the :cution of eviction orders prevent him from using his flat, and thus render his right ownership meaningless . He alleges a~ ,iolation of Article I of Protocol No . I . [E LAW The applicant complains thafthe provisions on snspension o1'the execution of ction orders, in :o far as they have had the effect of preventing him from occupyhis flat since 13 November 1984, coustitute an infringemerit of his ria,ht of nership, and relies on Article I of Protocol No . 1 which secures to every ratural legal person "the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions" . 1 . Observance of the cenditions set forth in Article :26 of the Convention The, Commission finds tlrat the application does riot raise any issue under Art- ~ 26 of the Comrention . The alleged violation derives fiom national laws against whieh, in the present :e, there is apparently no means of appeal under Italian law . Moreover,these ,cessive laws have continmA to operate since the date on which the present apcation was submitted to the Commission, which means that the six months' pericd erred to in Article 26 of the Convention does not run . 2. Applicatioii of Article I of Protocdl No. I The Commission finds that the application of the. statutory provisions relating the suspension of theexeceition of eviction orders does not in iiself entail loss of ,nership of the property in question, nanrelyrentedflats. - 211 It nevertheless points out that restrictions on the exercise of the right of property may constitute interference falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1(cf. Eur. Court H .R., Sporrong and Lünnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no . 52, para. 60). It notes in this connection that the building owned by the applicant was for~ residential u"se and that the applicant substantiated his need to take up residence th erer with his family before the Italian courts. The Commission therefore finds that the suspension of the execution of eviction K orders, in depriving the applicant of the unrestricted use of his possessions, suti-i stantially affected his right of ownership and constituted interference which must be lexaminedinthelightofsecondparagraphArticle1ofProtocolNo . 1(cf., { mutatis mutandis, No. 9063/84, Gillow v . United Kingdom, Comm . ReportE 3.10.84, para. 144 ff) . The aforementioned provision secures "the right of a Statei to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. ..". The Commission is thus required to consider two questions : whether thei legislation at issue pursues a legitimate aim "in the general interest", andwhether~ . the operation of the legislation and the control thereby exercised over iodividuals' use of their property is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (cf . No. 9063/84, ! Gillow v . United Kingdom, Comm. Report cited earlier, para . 146) . a) As to the first question, the Commission finds that the suspension of eviction ~ orders comes under the emergency legislation dictated by the need to deal with a housing crisis in the afrermath of a natural disaster. It finds that in thepresent case the suspension was introduced by law for at legitimate purpose and "in accordance with the general interest" within the meaningi of the second paragraph of Article I of Protocol No. I b) As to the second question, the Commission is required to vcrify whether in4 concreto a proper balance was struck between the general community interest andl the requirements of safeguarding the applicant's basic rights . The Commission finds in this respect that the provisions complained of by thej applicant only affected his right of ownership after 13 November 1984, i .e. for aboutf 16 months. ( It finds that the suspension of the eviction orders merely protracts the effects~` of the lease, so that the applicant's inability to enjoy the unrestricted use of hisf property coincides with his right to collect rent. ( t The Commission notes that the applicant is indeed invoking a specific interest , namely his need to use his flat as his place of residence . In .the instant case, the` interest at stake is the same for the owner as for the tenant . -- 212 7'he Commission nevertheless holds that in view of the very serious situation confrentirig the Italian legislator, and in the context of emergency legisla{ion, the legislator's opting to mainlain the status quo in the pn.sence of interests equally worthy of protection cannot in this case be considered c .nreasonable having regard to the time which has elapied . h: notes in particulcr the provisional nature of the suspension of eviction ordeis and the fact !hat the Italian legislatcr reviewed the need for this suspension at regular six-monthly intervals Having regard to the special circumstances of the case, aud to the margin of appreciation to which States are entitled in controlling "the use of property in accordance with the general interest", the Commission findn that the sacrifice demanded of the applicant is not unreasonable when weighed against the legitiniate aim pursued in accordance with the general interest by the provisions affecting his ownerrhip . 7'he application is the:refore manifestly ilI-fotmded and roust be rejected in accordance with Artiele 27 para. 2 of the Convention. For rhese reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE AF'PLICATION INADMISSIBI E. 213