CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 30 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 38162/15 Maria Domenica GINANNESCHI against Italy lodged on 23 July 2015 communicated on 9 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent in criminal proceedings against him on charges of unlawful site development, in which the offence was declared statute-barred. The applicant complains that his right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, has been violated since the domestic courts (in particular the Court of Appeal of Rome and the Court of Cassation), notwithstanding that they declared the offence statute-barred, made reference to his criminal responsibility despite the absence of a formal finding of guilt.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in relation to his complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see also the principles expressed by the plenary Court of Cassation in judgment no. 35490 of 28 May 2009)? If not, did the applicants have an effective remedy within the meaning of that provision to complain of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the criminal proceedings against the applicant? In particular, did the decisions of the domestic courts reflect the opinion that the applicant was guilty, notwithstanding the absence of a formal finding of guilt ( G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§   314 ‑ 18, 28 June 2018)?   In answering the second question, the parties are invited, in particular, to comment on whether the expressions used by the domestic courts in their decisions were strictly necessary in order to respond to the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant.