Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 179
November 2014
De Tommaso v. Italy (relinquishment) - 43395/09
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4
Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4
Freedom of movement
Imposition of special supervision measure on account of alleged dangerousness: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Alleged unfairness of proceedings leading to imposition of special supervision measure: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber
In April 2008 the applicant was placed under special supervision for a duration of two years. The court had found that, in view of his previous convictions for drug trafficking, escaping detention and unlawful possession of weapons, and the fact that he associated with criminals, the applicant was indisputably dangerous.
The special supervision order required the applicant to report once a week to the police authority responsible for his supervision, to seek employment within one month, to continue living in the same town, to lead an honest and law-abiding life, not to give cause for suspicion, not to associate with persons who had a criminal record and were subject to preventive or security measures, not to return home later than 10 p.m. or to leave home before 7 a.m., except in case of necessity and only after giving notice to the authorities in due time, not to keep or carry any weapons, not to frequent bars or nightclubs, and not to take part in public meetings.
In January 2009 the court of appeal observed that the offence of which the applicant had been convicted dated back to 2004 and was not especially serious, and that he had not committed any subsequent offences. The fact that he had associated with people with criminal records was not sufficient evidence of his dangerousness. The court of appeal held that the lower court had omitted to assess the impact of the rehabilitation purpose of the sentence on the applicant’s personality.
The applicant submits that the preventive measure imposed on him was arbitrary and applicable for an excessive length of time, seeing that the court of appeal’s ruling had been given six months after he had lodged his appeal. He also complains that the proceedings before the benches of the lower court and the court of appeal specialising in the application of preventive measures were not held in public and that the proceedings resulting in the application of preventive measures were unfair.
The case was communicated under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 6 of the Convention. On 25 November 2014 a Chamber of the Court decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy