CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 2025

.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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s2099F133 { width:92.54%; margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sE110381E { width:8.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8B598233 { width:43.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s22C91343 { width:25.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7C0B0EBB { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8FDBB2A7 { width:8.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9145935 { width:43.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s75849631 { width:25.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF53FD7AF { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 12 May 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 17660/20 Giuseppe CAMMARATA and Others against Italy lodged on 16 June 2020 communicated on 25 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the suspension of contact between the applicants, detained under the special prison regime provided for by Article   41   bis of Law no.   354/1975, and their minor children, pursuant to emergency legislation enacted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the above-mentioned special prison regime, the applicants were entitled to one family visit of one hour per month or, in the alternative, one telephone call of 10 minutes per month where the family member had to call from the prison facility closest to the family’s place of residence. Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to Article   2 §   8 of Law Decree no.   11 of 8   March 2020, family visits in prison were suspended and replaced, for detainees under the ordinary regime, with video and telephone calls. In addition, increasing restrictions on travel within the national territory were introduced. In particular, from 22   March to 3   May 2020, travels outside the municipality of residence were banned, save for exceptional circumstances. Between 23 and 25   March 2020 the applicants applied to the judge responsible for supervising the execution of sentences ( magistrato di sorveglianza ) for authorisation to receive video and telephone calls from their families through their private telephone lines, considering the restrictions on travel outside private homes. By order of 27   March 2020, the Department of Prison Administration allowed detainees under Article   41   bis of Law no.   354/1975 to receive two telephone calls of 10 minutes per month by maximum two family members at a time, with the exclusion of minors, the family member having to call from the prison facility or the Carabinieri station closest to their place of residence. The applicants challenged the order in the part that it prevented contacts with their minor children. By decisions issued on different dates as from 14   May 2020, telephone and video calls with their minor children were ultimately allowed under specific circumstances for the first, second and third applicants. The fourth applicant’s request was rejected at all levels of jurisdiction. The applicants complain that the suspension of contact with their minor children during the COVID-19 pandemic breached their right to respect for their private and family life guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention through the restrictions on contact with their minor children imposed during the COVID-   19 pandemic (see, mutatis mutandis , Kuimov v.   Russia , no.   32147/04, §   103, 8   January 2009)?   In answering the question, the parties are invited to: (a)     describe the evolution of the national legislation and case-law on family visits to and contacts with detainees under Article   41   bis of Law no.   354/1975 in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; (b)     indicate the number of contacts enjoyed by the applicants with their family members, and in particular their minor children, for the duration of the special legislation relating to the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, and the manner in which they took place.     APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. Giuseppe CAMMARATA 1977 Italian 2. Ferdinando CIMATO 1980 Italian 3. Antonino PESCE 1982 Italian 4. Leonardo VITALE 1986 Italian