Published on 26 May 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 33181/15
Enrico Rocco ARILOTTA
against Italy
lodged on 30 June 2015
communicated on 5 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the seizure of two companies owned by the applicant, as well as his bank accounts, financial assets and the content of some safety deposit boxes.
A first order of seizure of these assets was issued on 21 June 2010 by the Reggio Calabria judge for preliminary investigations, in the context of criminal proceedings pending against the applicant for charges of participation in a mafia-type organisation. Another order of seizure of the same assets was issued on 6 December 2010 by the section of the Reggio Calabria District Court responsible for the adoption of preventive measures, on account of suspicions of the applicant’s membership in a mafia-type organisation.
On 3 June 2014 the applicant was fully acquitted of the charges against him, and the seizure ordered in the criminal proceedings was revoked. On 14 January 2015 the same decision was adopted by the section responsible for preventive measures.
When he obtained restitution of the seized items, the applicant discovered that one of the companies had been declared bankrupt, while he submits that the properties owned by the other company were not returned to him.
The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the authorities’ failure to preserve the seized assets and return them once the measure has been lifted, and of the absence of a domestic remedy to seek compensation for the damage caused to the assets.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the seizure of the applicant’s assets necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular:
(i) did the domestic authorities comply with their duty of care in respect of the seized properties by taking all the reasonable measures necessary for their preservation (see Dabić v. Croatia, no. 49001/14, § 55, 18 March 2021, and Fu Quan, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 24827/14, § 160, 1 June 2023)?
(ii) did the domestic authorities return all the seized properties to the applicant after his acquittal (see Akpaz Société à responsabilité limitée v. Turkey, no. 6800/09, § 99, 18 January 2022, and Raimondo v. Italy, no. 12954/87, § 36, 22 February 2004)?
(iii) taking into account the limitations on the liability of the asset administrator enshrined in Article 35 bis of Legislative Decree no. 159 of 2011, did the domestic legislation provide the possibility of instituting proceedings against the State in order to obtain compensation for the damage allegedly resulting from the failure to preserve such property (see Dabić, § 55, and Fu Quan, s.r.o., § 160, both cited above; see also Tendam v. Spain, no. 25720/05, § 54, 13 July 2010; Stołkowski v. Poland, no. 58795/15, §§ 79‑81, 21 December 2021; and SCI Le Château du Francport c. France, no. 3269/18, §§ 42 and 52, 7 July 2022)?
The parties are invited to reply by providing case-law examples.