CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 décembre 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 January 2025     FIRST SECTION Application no. 51075/22 Renato AMANDONICO against Italy and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 20 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the confiscation of the applicants’ assets, ordered by the domestic courts pursuant to Article 24 of Legislative Decree no.   159 of 6 September 2011 ( Codice delle leggi antimafia e delle misure di prevenzione, “Decree no. 159/2011”). The applicants are individuals that have been declared socially dangerous in accordance with Article 1 §   1 (b) of Decree no.   159/2011 ( pericolosità generica or “ordinary dangerousness”). In all cases, the domestic proceedings have been instituted following the Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 24 of 27   February   2019, which aimed at clarifying the meaning of Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no.   159/2011 on the basis of the relevant domestic case-law and which found that, accordingly, that provision could not be considered to be lacking in clarity and foreseeability. Relying on the Court’s judgment in the case of De Tommaso v. Italy ([GC], no. 43395/09, 23 February 2017) all applicants’ main complaint concerns the alleged lack of clarity and foreseeability of the legal basis of the contested measures with regard to the identification of the individuals on whom the confiscation as a preventive measure could be imposed. The specific complaints raised by each of the applicants, and the corresponding questions which the parties are requested to answer, are indicated in the appended table. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   (a)     Was the interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by the law, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, was Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no.   159/2011, as clarified in the Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 24 of 27 February 2019, sufficiently precise and clear, foreseeable in its application and consequences, and compatible with the rule of law, in respect of the individuals to whom confiscation of assets as a preventive measure is applicable (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no.   43395/09, § 126, 23   February   2017)?   If so, were the conditions established in Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no.   159/2011, as clarified in the Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 24 of 27   February 2019, complied with in the applicants’ cases (see, mutatis mutandis , East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine , no. 19336/04, §   167, 23   January   2014)?   (b)     As concerns application no. 26360/23, was the interference proportionate to the aim pursued? In answering the question, the parties are requested to refer, inter alia , to the following points:   (i)     whether the domestic authorities made a sufficiently individualised assessment of the disproportion between the applicant’s assets and her lawful income, in order to identify which pieces of property to confiscate (see, mutatis mutandis , Rummi v. Estonia , no.   63362/09, § 108, 15   January   2015, and Todorov and Others v.   Bulgaria , nos.   50705/11 and 6 others, §   221, 13   July   2021; a contrario , Phillips v. the United Kingdom , no.   41087/98, §   53, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII, Silickienė v. Lithuania , no. 20496/02, §   68, 10   April   2012, and Gogitidze and Others v.   Georgia , no.   36862/05, §§   105-07, 12   May   2015);   (ii)     whether the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting her argument before the domestic courts and whether the latter duly examined the evidence submitted by the applicant ( Telbis and Viziteu v.   Romania , no.   47911/15, § 78, 26   June   2018).   2.     As concerns application no. 26360/23, taking into account the characterisation of the contested measure under the domestic law and case ‑ law (compare, inter alia , Court of Cassation, judgments no.   18   of 3   July   1996, no. 57 of 8 January 2006, no. 39204 of 17   May   2013, and no.   4880 of 2 February 2015; contra judgment no. 14044 of 25   March   2013; see also, inter alia , Constitutional Court, judgments no.   21 of 9   February   2012, and no. 24 of 27   February 2019), its nature and purpose, the procedures involved in its imposition and implementation, and its severity, did the confiscation applied to the applicant pursuant to Article 24 of Decree no.   159/2011 amount to a “penalty” within the meaning of Article   7   §   1 of the Convention (compare Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, §   2, ECHR 2001-VII, Capitani and Campanella v. Italy , no.   24920/07, §   37, 17   May   2011, Gogitidze and Others , cited above, § 121, and, mutatis mutandis , Balsamo , cited above, §   58 et seq., and contrast with G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§   214 et seq., 28   June   2018)?   If so, has there been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention, on account of the alleged lack of clarity and foreseeability of the relevant domestic provision?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth/Registration date Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Relevant domestic provision Position in the domestic proceedings Convention Articles (as invoked by the applicants), complaints and questions to the parties Final domestic decision 1. 51075/22 Amandonico v. Italy 25/10/2022 Renato AMANDONICO 1969 Telsano Italian Cristiano STASI Foggia Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no. 25042 of 30   June   2022 2. 51746/22 Amandonico v. Italy 25/10/2022 Alessandro AMANDONICO 1991 Leporano Italian Cristiano STASI Foggia Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no. 25042 of 30   June   2022 3. 26360/23 Bonazzi v. Italy 23/06/2023 Bruna BONAZZI 1946 Verona Italian Pina DI CREDICO Reggio d’Émilie Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 7 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2 Court of Cassation, judgment no. 8542 of 27   February   2023 4. 30741/23 Mochrik v. Italy 26/07/2023 Souad MOCHRIK 1981 SEE REP. ADDRESS Moroccan Pasquale LONGOBUCCO Ferrara Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no., 12987 of 28   March   2023 5. 30746/23 El Mangar v. Italy 26/07/2023 Bilal EL MANGAR 1976 SEE REP. ADDRESS Moroccan Pasquale LONGOBUCCO Ferrara Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no., 12987 of 28   March   2023