CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 8 January 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 36460/14 Giulio GARGANO against Italy lodged on 18 April 2014 communicated on 6 December 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lack of a public hearing in the course of enforcement proceedings aimed at the confiscation of the applicant’s assets, as well as the order of confiscation after the criminal conviction had become final. In December 2006 the applicant was convicted, on the basis of a plea   -   bargain, of participation in a criminal organisation and corruption. The conviction became final on 26 April 2007. In January 2009 the public prosecution asked for the confiscation of sums considered equivalent to the price or proceeds of the corruption (“confiscation by equivalent means”; confisca per equivalente ). On 1   December 2010 the enforcement judge ordered the confiscation, and this decision became final on 24   October 2013 by decision of the Court of Cassation. The applicant complains, under Article 6   § 1 of the Convention, that no public hearing was held before the enforcement judge. He also complains, under Article   4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, of having been punished twice for the same conduct.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the lack of a public hearing in the proceedings conducted before the enforcement judge compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for general principles, Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§   40-41, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV, and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.   55391/13 and 2 others, §§   187-91, 6   November 2018; see also mutatis mutandis , Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy , no.   399/02, §§   40-41, 13   November 2007, and Bongiorno and Others v. Italy , no.   4514/07, §§   29-   30, 5 January 2010)?   2.     Has the applicant been punished twice for the same offence, as prohibited by Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings sufficiently closely connected in substance and time (see A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 130-34, 15   November 2016, and Goulandris and Vardinogianni v. Greece , no.   1735/13, §§ 55 and 79, 16   June 2022)?