CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 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 } Published on 29   April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   62786/13 Fabio BUGO against Italy lodged on 24   September 2013 communicated on 11   April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the use of evidence unlawfully obtained by the police. On 29   May 2002, in the context of a search, the applicant, who worked at the State Mint and Polygraphic Institute ( Ufficio Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato ), made self-incriminating declarations by confessing that he had stolen revenue stamps from his workplace. Consequently, the applicant was charged with embezzlement. On 27   November 2006, the applicant was acquitted by the Rome District Court. The court found that the self-incriminating declarations could not be admitted as evidence in trial as the applicant had not been notified of his right to a lawyer and his right to remain silent. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 28   September 2007. On the basis of the same facts, on 19   January 2011, the Court of Auditors ordered the applicant to pay compensation to the Treasury for the pecuniary damages caused by the theft of the revenue stamps (judgment no.   1802/10). On 25   March 2013, the judgment was upheld by the appeal section of the Court of Auditors (judgment no.   194/13). Accordingly, on 12   July 2013, the Ministry of Economy and Finance requested the applicant to pay within 30   days 322,686.58   Euros, including revaluation and interests. The applicant complains under Article   6 of the Convention that the Court of Auditors ordered him to pay compensation on the basis of self-incriminating declarations unlawfully obtained by the police that should have been declared inadmissible also in the proceedings before the Court of Auditors. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Taking into account the manner in which the evidence was obtained, did the applicant have a fair hearing before the Court of Auditors in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( López Ribalda and Others v.   Spain [GC], nos.   1874/13 and 8567/13, §§   149-52, 17   October 2019)?