CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }         SECOND SECTION Application no. 43028/05 Adelina PARRILLO against Italy lodged on 17 November 2005 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Adelina Parrillo, is an Italian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Rome. She is represented before the Court by Mr   Nicolὸ Paoletti and Ms Alessandra Mari, lawyers practising in Rome. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. From 1997 the applicant cohabited more uxorio with Mr R., a film director. In 2003, with the endorsement and the authorization of the Italian Ministry of Defence, the latter started the shooting of a film in Iraq. As a consequence of a terrorist attack against the Italian military force which took place in Nasiriya on 12 November 2003, Mr R. was killed, together with another eighteen Italian nationals. On the occasion of the second anniversary of the Nasiriya massacre, the Italian authorities, including the President of the Republic, the President of the Constitutional Court, the Minister for Defence, the Mayor of Rome and the President of Lazio Region, organised a solemn event in Rome to honour the memory of the victims. After a mass had taken place in an army barracks, the applicant and some relatives of Mr R. were escorted by an Italian military bus to the Flags Sanctuary of the Altar of the Fatherland ( Altare della Patria ) in order to attend the ceremony for the award of the Cross of Honour to the victims’ families. However, while the applicant was entering the Sanctuary, she was blocked by three police officers, dragged on the ground for some meters and forcibly taken away in order to be excluded from the ceremony. As a consequence, the applicant states that she had a panic attack and felt faint. The applicant also states that she was restrained for more than an hour by the same agents, who allegedly sought to prevent her from giving interviews to the journalists who were there. On 15 November 2005, a group of fifty-nine Members of Parliament submitted a formal question to the Ministry of Defence and to the Ministry of the Interior, criticising the way in which the applicant had been treated and requesting that she be included in the list of the relatives of the victims of Nasiriya, so as to benefit of the same treatment as the other victims’ widows. In answering to the question, on 17 November 2005 the representative of the Ministry of Defence recalled that the applicant had in any event been allowed to attend the mass held on the same day along with the other victims’ families and that, as far as the ceremony for the award of the Cross of Honour was concerned, she had been excluded according to the provisions of law no. 207/05 (see the “Relevant domestic law” below). In   his opinion, this law provided a list of family members to whom the award could be made, and only the persons concerned could be invited to participate in the event, the presence of Ms Parrillo “being in contrast with the position of Mr R.’s relatives”. B.     Relevant domestic law Law no. 207 of 10 October 2005, institutes the Cross of Honour to be awarded to the victims of acts of terrorism [...] perpetrated abroad during military and civil operations. The law provides that, when given in memory of a victim, the award is given to the surviving spouse or in his or her absence, to his or her children, parents, brothers or sisters, in that order. In the absence of the said relatives, the cross is given to the city hall of the place of residence of the victim. COMPLAINTS 1.     Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the violation of her right to respect for her private and family life, alleging that she was excluded from the Cross of Honour ceremony dedicated to the memory of her partner. She also indicates that Article 8 of the Convention is applicable in case of legal as well as of natural family ties. In this respect, the applicant has produced a copy of eight declarations of third persons presented before the registry of the Magistrate’s Court ( pretore ) attesting to the fact that she had been living more uxorio with Mr R. since 1997. 2.     The applicant also alleges a breach of Article 14 of the Convention to the extent that, contrary to the other victim’s family members, she was excluded from the ceremony on account of the mere fact that she was not legally married to Mr R.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the exclusion of the applicant from the award ceremony of the Cross of Honour in her partner’s memory constitute an interference with her right to respect for her private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her right to her private and family life on the ground of her legal family status, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?