CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 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 } Published on 22   July 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   53610/19 Eid KEWAIS against Italy lodged on 4   October 2019 communicated on 2   July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confiscation of the applicant’s apartment following his conviction for renting it to illegal aliens, on the basis of Article   12, paragraph 5   bis , of Legislative Decree no.   286 of 1998 (the Immigration Act). Following an acquittal at first instance, the applicant was convicted by the Milan Court of Appeal for renting an apartment, from December 2010 to July 2011, to two illegal aliens upon the payment by each of them of 150   euros per month. The applicant was sentenced to 10 months of detention (suspended) and the apartment was confiscated. On 29   May 2019, the Court of Cassation confirmed that judgment. The applicant complains, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, that the confiscation was disproportionate as the value of the apartment, allegedly amounting to 125,000   euros, was significantly higher than the proceeds of the crime. He further complains of the automatic application of the confiscation, without the possibility for domestic courts to assess its proportionality.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the confiscation of the applicant’s property necessary and proportionate to the public interest pursued, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, the parties are invited to address the following points: (i) whether, taking into account the purpose of the confiscation, it imposed an excessive burden on the applicant; (ii) whether the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to put his case to the competent authorities with a view to enabling them to establish a fair balance between the conflicting interests at stake (see, mutatis   mutandis , Yaremiychuk and Others v.   Ukraine , nos.   2720/13 and 6 others, §   31, 9   December 2021, Andonoski v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   16225/08, §§   37-38, 17   September 2015 and   G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v.   Italy [GC], nos.   1828/06 and 2 others, §   303, 28   June 2018).