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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 51504/22 Giuseppe CAVALLUZZO against Italy lodged on 27 October 2022 communicated on 9 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to honour and reputation committed by the domestic courts in criminal proceedings against him on charges of embezzlement. The District Court of Rome acquitted the applicant. However, in the reasoning of its judgment, the court stated “that his conduct should be subsumed under the offence of aiding and abetting”. Under Article 8, in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the above-mentioned passage from the domestic court’s decision failed to ensure respect for his right to honour and reputation, and that he had no domestic remedy at his disposal to contest that statement.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, specifically to his right to honour and reputation, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention ( Sanchez Cardenas v. Norway , no.   12148/03, §§   33-39, 4 October 2007, and Vicent Del Campo v. Spain , no.   25527/13, §§   39-42 and 48-56, 6 November 2018)? In particular, did the domestic court take all the necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that the decision taken would not affect the applicant’s honour and reputation? Was the above-mentioned statement necessary in terms of Article 8 §   2, also considering that the criminal proceedings concerned other charges?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention, considering that the statement was contained in the reasoning of a judgment of acquittal?