CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF0E7BF98 { width:106.04%; border-collapse:collapse } .s77B0634B { width:7.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s74C072D8 { width:21.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8C6DA246 { width:16.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s248CD678 { width:18.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s48483790 { width:36.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCF8EBB52 { width:7.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC805EC11 { width:21.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5EA16826 { width:16.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9384BE67 { width:18.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8EEF725B { width:36.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 21 May 2024     FIRST SECTION Application no. 51080/12 Leonardo GUERRA and Antonia CASUCCI against Italy lodged on 2 August 2012 communicated on 3 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confiscation of the applicants’ assets, ordered by the competent domestic courts as a preventive measure, given that the applicants were declared socially dangerous pursuant to section 1 § 1 (1) and   (2) of Law no. 1423 of 27 December 1956 ( pericolosità generica   or “ordinary dangerousness”) as persons who, on the basis of factual evidence, may be regarded as “habitual offenders” and who are “habitually living off the proceeds of crimes”. The domestic courts further considered that their assets were disproportionate to their lawful income and that they had failed to demonstrate their lawful origin. The measure was eventually confirmed by the Court of Cassation’s judgment no. 7800 of 28   February   2012. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, both applicants complain of: (i) the elements on the basis of which they have been declared socially dangerous, and (ii) the lack of correlation between the period in which they have acquired the confiscated properties and the crimes allegedly committed. Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the first applicant complains of an alleged breach of the presumption of innocence. He argues that the Court of Appeal declared him socially dangerous as a person habitually committing the crime of usury, notwithstanding he had been acquitted in each of the proceedings in which he was prosecuted for such crime. The applicants further complain, under Article 8 of the Convention, of an allegedly disproportionate interference with their right to a family life and to home, as the house where they had established their domicile was confiscated. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards both applicants, was the interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   In particular, did the reversal of the burden of proof as to the lawful origin of the assets impose an excessive burden on the applicants?   In answering the question, the parties are requested to refer,   inter alia , to the following points:   (a)     whether the domestic authorities showed in a reasoned manner, on the basis of an objective assessment of the factual evidence and without relying on a mere suspicion or stereotyped arguments, that the applicants were socially dangerous (see, mutatis mutandis , Balsamo   v.   San   Marino , nos.   20319/17   and   21414/17, § 91, 8   October   2019);   (b)     whether, with regard to the assets that had been acquired after the period during which the applicants had been presumably committing crimes, the domestic authorities justified in a reasoned manner and on the basis of an objective assessment of facts and evidence that those assets had been presumably purchased with the proceeds of crimes (see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, §§ 245-49, 13   July   2021);   (c)     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).   2.     As regards the first applicant, did the decision of the Lecce Court of Appeal, Section of Taranto, of 9 September 2009 reflect the opinion that the second applicant was guilty of crimes in respect of which he had been previously acquitted?   If so, has there been a violation of the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Allen v. United Kingdom [GC], no.   25424/09, CEDH 2013, and Geerings v. the Netherlands , no.   30810/03, § 47, 1 March 2007)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for home guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the house which constituted their domicile was confiscated? If so, was the interference in accordance with the law, necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aim pursued (see Aboufadda v. France (dec.), no.   28457/10, § 43, 4 November 2014, and, mutatis mutandis , Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria , no.   46577/15, §§ 53-56, 21   April   2016)?     APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Leonardo GUERRA 1948 Italian Talsano 2. Antonia CASUCCI 1952 Italian Lecce