CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 15 April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 13935/23 Gloria GIARDI against San Marino lodged on 16 March 2023 communicated on 26 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a decision by the San Marino Parliament ( Consiglio Grande e Generale ) of 2 December 2022 mandating the Government to launch an investigation, with the possibility of criminal pursuit should a crime have been committed, to discover who had submitted false information to the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (‘GREVIO’ - the body of independent experts responsible for monitoring the implementation by the parties of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence). According to the GREVIO’s (Baseline) Evaluation Report adopted by GREVIO on 23 June 2021, published on 23 September 2021, “Despite the unavailability of clear data, legal practitioners drew GREVIO’s attention to the fact that an estimated 545 cases were time-barred in 2017, many of which were cases of domestic violence”. However, according to other official sources, in 2017, there had been only six cases of violence against women or children which had become time barred. In the context of an Istanza d’arengo (a democratic instrument allowing citizens to present a matter of public interest to the Parliament) lodged by the Organisation Unione Donne Sammarinesi (‘UDS’ – Women’s Union of San Marino) requesting for measures to be taken to reduce the number of such cases, the Parliament rejected the request and took the impugned measure. It is unclear whether any investigation actually took place, however, following an intervention by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (‘PACE’), in relation to the matter, the Government confirmed in writing that it saw no elements that would justify an investigation and therefore considered the procedure closed [1] . However, according to the applicant, the decision of 2 December 2022 remains effective as it has not been revoked. The applicant is a lawyer by profession and a member of the UDS. She is one of the lawyers together with others who was met by the GREVIO delegation that prepared the baseline report. Indeed, the latter report indicates that GREVIO had held consultations with, inter alia , the Association of Lawyers and UDS. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention the applicant considers that the decision by the San Marino Parliament of 2 December 2022 – which called for investigative measures and implied that giving information to a monitoring body could be a criminal offence – had a chilling effect on her (as a lawyer, activist and citizen), irrespective of the fact that the procedure came to an end. She emphasized that the underlying aim of the measure was to intimidate lawyers and activists alike from pursuing the defence of human rights, by inter alia , assisting monitoring bodies. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been a victim of an interference with her freedom of expression, in particular her right to receive and impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention (see for general principles and their application Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v.   Switzerland (dec.), no. 68995/13, 12   November 2019, and Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey , nos. 41139/15 and 41146/15, §   57, 4   May 2021)?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? [1] See point 74 of the Report Doc. 15737 of 06 April 2023 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on the honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by San Marino.