CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2024

.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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE446CB87 { width:102.18%; border-collapse:collapse } .s7DF1C281 { width:7.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7BE22F11 { width:29.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFD6DAC91 { width:17.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s18CE2F9D { width:18.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s796A1346 { width:27.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s83C0F899 { width:7.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6D7AFD8E { width:29.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE23C005D { width:17.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68F9AFD5 { width:18.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s489EFFB3 { width:27.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 4 March 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 78715/16 Giuseppe LETIZIA and Others against Italy lodged on 7 December 2016 communicated on 12 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confiscation of the applicants’ assets pursuant to Law no.   575 of 31   May 1965. On 3   April 2008 Mr. Letizia (“the first applicant”) was convicted –   following a plea bargain ( patteggiamento ) – of damage caused by arson, as well as of uttering threats and private violence ( violenza privata ) committed in aggravating circumstances given the use of mafia methods between 2003 and 2007. The judgment was issued by M.G., an investigating judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari ). In 2011 the first applicant was convicted of extorsion committed in aggravating circumstances given the use of mafia methods in 2002. On appeal, Judge F.T. sat in the bench. The conviction became final with the judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 10467 of 14   March 2018. The national courts confiscated the first applicant’s assets, as well as assets belonging to his children and partner (applicants nos. 2 to 4) which they considered to be at the first applicant’s disposal. The measure was based on the “special dangerousness” ( pericolosità qualificata ) of the first applicant, suspected of having committed mafia-related crimes. The national courts stated that such assets were disproportionate to the applicants’ lawful income and that they were unable to demonstrate their lawful origin. On appeal, the confiscation was upheld by a bench of three judges, including   F.T. and   M.G. The confiscation became final with the judgment of the Court of Cassation no.   23809 of 8 June 2016. The applicants complain, under Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1   of   Protocol No.   1 to the Convention: (i) that the courts dealing with their case lacked impartiality; (ii) that the principle of equality of arms was not respected, in particular in regard to the collection of evidence; (iii) of the use of presumptions concerning both the first applicant’s dangerousness and the unlawful origin of the assets; and (iv) of the disproportionate character of the confiscation, which included assets acquired before the commission of the crimes and third parties assets. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair trial, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were they afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case under conditions that did not place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their opponent? Did the domestic courts duly take into account the applicant’s arguments and were their judgments sufficiently reasoned?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, was the interference necessary and proportionate? In particular, did the applicants suffer an excessive burden on account of the reversal of the burden of proof to their detriment, taking into account:   (1)     whether the domestic authorities showed that the confiscated assets could have been of wrongful origin in a reasoned manner, on the basis of an objective assessment of the factual evidence and without relying on a mere suspicion, also in light of the date of their acquisition (see Todorov and Others v.   Bulgaria , nos.   50705/11 and 6   others, § 215, 13   July 2021); (2)     whether the applicants faced difficulties in satisfying the burden of proof due to the lengthy period over which their income and expenses were examined, and the fact that they were requested to prove the lawful origin of their assets many years after they had been purchased (see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , cited above, §   202 and Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria , no.   12655/09, §   46, 3   March   2015); (3)     whether the applicants were afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting their arguments before the domestic courts and whether the latter duly examined the evidence submitted by the applicants (see Telbis and Viziteu v.   Romania , no. 47911/15, § 78, 26   June   2018 and G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v.   Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2   others, §   302, 28   June 2018)?     List of applicants No. Applicant’s Name Date of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Giuseppe LETIZIA 19/12/1964 Italian Trapani 2. Rosalinda LENZO 24/04/1977 Italian Capo d’Orlando 3. Francesca Santina LETIZIA 01/11/1990 Italian Capo d’Orlando 4. Salvatore LETIZIA 27/09/1988 Italian Capo d’Orlando