D'ORIANO v. ITALY and 41 other applications

Published on 15 July 2024

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 43204/12
Antonio D’ORIANO against Italy
and 41 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 28 June 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”). Some of them also concern the imposition on the applicants of the measure of special police supervision, pursuant to Article 6 of the same decree (see the appended table).

The applicants are either individuals who have been declared socially dangerous in accordance with Article 1 § 1 (a) and/or (b) of Decree no. 159/2011, reproducing the ones enshrined in Article 1 § 1 (1) and (2) of Law no. 1423 of 27 December 1956 (pericolosità generica or “ordinary dangerousness”), or family members or next-of-kin of individuals who have been declared socially dangerous pursuant to the same provision, whose properties were confiscated. As for the former, the domestic courts considered that their assets were disproportionate to their lawful income and that the applicants had failed to demonstrate their lawful origin. As for the latter, the domestic courts considered that the relevant assets were formally owned by the applicants but, in reality, belonged to their socially dangerous relatives (intestazione fittizia or “fictitious ownership”) or, in any event, were under their effective control and at their disposal. The courts further observed that such assets were disproportionate to their and their relatives’ lawful incomes and that they had failed to demonstrate their lawful origin.

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, raised under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as well as different other provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, concerns the alleged lack of clarity and foreseeability of the legal basis of the contested measures with regard to the identification of the individuals to whom confiscation and special police supervision could be imposed.

The complaints raised by each applicant, 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? In particular:

(a)  was the interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by the law, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In this respect, were provisions (a) and/or (b) of Article 1 § 1 of Decree no. 159/2011 sufficiently precise and clear, foreseeable in their 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)?

(b)  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 nature and severity of the crimes, on which the declaration of social dangerousness has been based, justified the presumption that the applicants’ assets were proceeds of unlawful activities (compare Bongiorno and Others v. Italy, no. 4514/07, § 45, 5 January 2010; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 107, 12 May 2015; Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15, §§ 74 and 77, 26 June 2018; and Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 91, 8 October 2019);

(ii)  whether the domestic authorities made a sufficiently individualised assessment of proportionality between the applicants’ assets and their 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, cited above, §§ 105-07);

(iii)  as regards the cases concerning the intestazione fittizia, whether the domestic authorities showed in a reasoned manner, on the basis of an objective assessment of the factual evidence, that the confiscated assets belonged to the individual declared socially dangerous (see Gogitidze and Others, cited above, § 122, and Balsamo, cited above, §91);

(iv)  whether the applicants were afforded a reasonable opportunity to put their argument before the domestic courts and whether the latter duly examined the evidence submitted by the applicants (Telbis and Viziteu, cited above, § 78).

2.  Was the interference with the applicants’ right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence in accordance with the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? In this regard:

(a)  Was the interference in accordance with the law? In particular:

(i)  were the provisions (a) and/or (b) of Article 1 § 1 of Decree no. 159/2011 sufficiently precise and clear, foreseeable in their application and consequences, and compatible with the rule of law, in respect of the individuals to whom special supervision as a preventive measure is applicable (see De Tommaso, cited above, § 126)?

(ii)  were the obligations imposed on account of the measure sufficiently clear and determined (ibid., §§ 119-22)?

(b)  Did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests and the applicants’ rights?

3.  Taking into account the characterisation of the contested measure under 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 applicants 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:

(a)  the alleged lack of clarity and foreseeability of the relevant domestic provisions?

(b)  the fact that the applicants have not been convicted of any criminal offence?

(c)  the retrospective application of the relevant domestic provisions?

4.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the house which constituted their domicile was confiscated?

If so:

(a)  was the measure in accordance with the law, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8? In particular, were the provisions (a) and/or (b) of Article 1 § 1 of Decree no. 159/2011 sufficiently precise and clear, foreseeable in their 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, cited above § 126)?

(b)  was the interference necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aim pursued (see Aboufadda v. France (dec.), no. 28457/10, § 43, 4 November 2014, and, mutatis mutandis, Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, §§ 53-56, 21 April 2016)?

5.  Provided that the measure can be considered criminal in nature (see question no. 3), has there been a violation of the ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention?

6.  Did the decisions of the domestic courts in the preventive proceedings reflect the opinion that the applicants were guilty, notwithstanding the absence of a formal finding of guilt, given that the criminal proceedings were still pending?

If so, has there been a violation of the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, CEDH 2013, Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 32483/19 and 35049/19, §§ 150-169, 11 June 2024, and, mutatis mutandis, Geerings v. the Netherlands, no. 30810/03, § 47, 1 March 2007)?

7.  Was the applicants’ case decided by an impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

Applications concerned:

No.

Application no.
Case name
Introduction date

Applicant’s name
Year of birth
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.

43204/12
D’Oriano v. Italy
29/06/2012

Antonio D’ORIANO
1967
Brindisi
Italian

Federico MASSA
Lecce

Article 1 § 1 (1) and (2) of Law no. 1423/1956

Declared socially dangerous

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. 92 of 18 January 2012

2.

34428/17
Sussetto v. Italy
03/05/2017

Giuseppina SUSSETTO
1944
Turin
Italian

Mauro RONCO
Turin

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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, 2 and 3 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - defence made impossible by the passage of time - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 3842 of 25 January 2017

3.

81413/17
Mazzeo v. Italy
24/11/2017

Maria MAZZEO
1979
Cuggiono (MI)
Italian

Massimo BIFFA
Rome

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Third party - daughter of D.M., 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. 26542 of 26 May 2017

4.

82104/17
Mazzeo v. Italy
24/11/2017

Domenico MAZZEO
1954
MARCALLO CON CASONE
Italian

Federico RIBOLDI
Milan

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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) (ii) and (iv)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i)

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. 3, lett. (a)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 26542 of 26 May 2017

5.

82105/17
Mazzeo v. Italy
24/11/2017

Angelo MAZZEO
1986
Cuggiono
Italian

Pier Francesco POLI
Milan

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Third party - Son of D.M., 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) (ii), (iii) and (iv)

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. 3, lett. (a)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 26542 of 26 May 2017

6.

2196/18
Balducci v. Italy
03/01/2018

Angelo BALDUCCI
1948
Rome
Italian

Franco Carlo COPPI
Rome

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i), (ii) and (iv)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i)

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. 3, lett. (a)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 4521 of 4 July 2017

7.

22166/18
Vissicchio v. Italy
03/05/2018

Mario VISSICCHIO
1970
Agropoli
Italian

Alfredo VISSICCHIO
1968
Agropoli
Italian

Antonio PAGLIANO
Naples

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of proportionality of the measure of confiscation - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied and lack of clarity of the obligations imposed - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i) and (ii)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of proportionality of the measure of special police supervision - question no. 2, lett. (b)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 50437 of 6 November 2017

8.

44036/18
Oliveri v. Italy
13/09/2018

Matteo Giuseppe OLIVERI
1981
Giulianova
Italian

Valerio VIANELLO ACCORRETTI
Rome

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Third party - son of O.V., 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (iii) and (iv)

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. 3 (a)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 11846 of 15 March 2018

9.

4986/19
Pantone v. Italy
10/01/2019

Vincenza PANTONE
1954
Andria
Italian

Fabrizio Michele DI TERLIZZI
Trani

Third party - former partner of D.Q., 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 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (iii) and (iv)

Article 7 of the Convention - imposition of a penalty on a third party - question no. 3, lett. (b)

Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 31307 of 10 July 2018

10.

5051/19
Quacquarelli v. Italy
09/01/2019

Domenico QUACQUARELLI
1954
Bisceglie
Italian

Domenico DI TERLIZZI
Trani

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i)

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. 3, lett. (a)

Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a)

Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b)

Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - breach of the ne bis in idem principle - question no. 5

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 31307 of 10 July 2018

11.

17346/19
Ascione v. Italy
22/03/2019

Giuliano ASCIONE
1954
Formia
Italian

Francesco BERTOROTTA
Palerme

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i), (ii) and (iv)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 40913 of 24 September 2018

12.

21042/19

Raggi v. Italy

08/04/2019

Silvano RAGGI

1948

Fabriano

Italian

Alessandro ROCCO

Ancona

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 § 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i), (ii) and (iv)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 45008 of 8 October 2018

13.

31549/19
Magnisi v. Italy
04/06/2019

Massimo MAGNISI
1964
Milazzo
Italian

Armando VENETO
Palmi

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Intervened in the domestic proceedings as heir of A.M., 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, 2 and 3 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 11593 of 19 December 2019

14.

37031/19
Lafleur v. Italy
02/07/2019

Maria LAFLEUR
1982
Milan
Italian

Danilo BUONGIORNO
Milan

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Third party - daughter of P.L., 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. 2470 of 18 January 2019

15.

45070/19
Mongardini v. Italy
19/08/2019

Marco MONGARDINI
1966
Milan
Italian

Riziero ANGELETTI
Rieti

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 8651 of 27 February 2019

16.

58290/19
Baglio v. Italy
30/10/2019

Maria BAGLIO
1971
Sassuolo
Italian

Giuseppe PAVAN
Padoue

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Third party - daughter of R.A.B., 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. 18312 of 2 May 2019

17.

61236/19
Baglio v. Italy
30/10/2019

Manuela BAGLIO
1976
Fiorano Modesene
Italian

Giuseppe PAVAN
Padoue

Daughter of Mr. R.A. Baglio, declared socially dangerous pursuant to Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree 159/2011

Third party - daughter of R.A.B., 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 4 of Protocol No. 7 - breach of the ne bis in idem principle - question no. 5

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 18312 of 2 May 2019

18.

2177/20
De Pierro v. Italy
05/12/2019

Giovanni DE PIERRO
1950
Quarteira Loule
Italian

Antonella MASCIA
Vérone

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Article 6 § 2 of the Convention - presumption of innocence - question no. 6

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 31449 of 17 July 2019

19.

6088/20
Castiglione v. Italy
17/01/2020

Martino CASTIGLIONE
1956
Strongoli
Italian

Federico DI SALVO
Florence

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 31585 of 17 July 2019

20.

6110/20
Paonessa v. Italy
17/01/2020

Lucia PAONESSA
1958
Rome
Italian

Antonella MASCIA
Vérone

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Third party - shareholder of companies whose shares have been considered actually owned by G.D.P., 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)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 31549 of 17 July 2019

21.

16001/20
Morini v. Italy
11/03/2020

Gian Luca MORINI
1961
Fosdinovo
Italian

Bruno NASCIMBENE
Milan

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 of the Convention - 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. 3, lett. (a)

Article 6 § 2 of the Convention - presumption of innocence - question no. 6

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 37905 of 12 September 2019

22.

27000/20
Pirozzi v. Italy
25/06/2020

Luigi PIROZZI
Ciampino
Italian

Diego GALASSI
Rome

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 25375 of 27 December 2019

23.

48585/20
Levacovich v. Italy
26/10/2020

Vittorio LEVACOVICH
1963
Buggiano
Italian

Baldassare LAURIA
Alcamo

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 13037 of 27 April 2020

24.

48597/20
Levacovich v. Italy
26/10/2020

Martin LEVACOVICH
1988
Buggiano
Italian

Baldassare LAURIA
Alcamo

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 13037 of 27 April 2020

25.

48602/20
Levacovich v. Italy
26/10/2020

Debora LEVACOVICH
1982
Buggiano
Italian

Baldassare LAURIA
Alcamo

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 13037 of 27 April 2020

26.

48606/20
Odorovich v. Italy
26/10/2020

Emanuela ODOROVICH
1965
Buggiano
Italian

Baldassare LAURIA
Alcamo

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 13037 of 27 April 2020

27.

51017/20
Afilani v. Italy
06/11/2020

Francesco AFILANI
1974
Nettuno
Italian

Pasquale CARDILLO CUPO
Formia

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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)

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 14845 of 13 May 2020

28.

15858/21
Morelli v. Italy
08/03/2021

Filippa MORELLI
1964
Avezzano
Italian

Cosimo CASTRIGNANÒ
Lecce

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 § 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 25416 of 8 September 2020

29.

15884/21
Di Silvio v. Italy
08/03/2021

Rosaria DI SILVIO
1979
Avezzano
Italian

Cosimo CASTRIGNANÒ
Lecce

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 § 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 25416 of 8 September 2020

30.

15908/21
Di Silvio v. Italy
08/03/2021

Ferdinando DI SILVIO
1957
Avezzano
Italian

Cosimo CASTRIGNANÒ
Lecce

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 § 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 25416 of 8 September 2020

31.

30464/21
Melloni v. Italy
28/05/2021

Domenico MELLONI
1968
Genzano di Roma
Italian

Giulia BONGIORNO
Rome

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of clarity of the content of the obligations imposed - question no. 2, lett. (a) (ii)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 34325 of 2 December 2020

32.

30535/21
Anderlucci v. Italy
28/05/2021

Massimiliano ANDERLUCCI
1976
Genzano di Roma
Italian

Giulia BONGIORNO
Rome

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of clarity of the content of the obligations imposed - question no. 2, lett. (a) (ii)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 34325 of 2 December 2020

33.

30615/21
Fazzari v. Italy
05/06/2021

Simone FAZZARI
1978
Rome
Italian

Gianluca MACCHIONI
Rome

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Article 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 37147 of 22 December 2020

34.

31761/21
Avarello v. Italy
08/06/2021

Maria Stella AVARELLO
1940
Giubiasco
Italian

Cesare GALLONI
Rome

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Third party - wife of S.F., 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 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Article 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 37147 of 22 December 2020

35.

32225/21
Marini and Colelli v. Italy
21/06/2021

Alessia MARINI
1966
Sacrofano
Italian

Giacometta COLELLI
1942
Rome
Italian

Antonella MASCIA
Vérone

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

First applicant - third party - partner of M.C., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings

Second applicant - third party - mother of the first applicant

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 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)

Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

As regards the first applicant, Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a)

As regards the first applicant, Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 37160 of 22 December 2020

36.

32256/21
Larosa and Garruzzo v. Italy
07/06/2021

Salvatore LAROSA
1954
Fondi
Italian

Rosaria GARRUZZO
1960
Fondi
Italian

Antonella MASCIA
Vérone

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

First applicant - declared socially dangerous

Second applicant - third party - wife of the first applicant

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 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)

Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a)

Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b)

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - lack of impartiality - question no. 7

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 35803 of 14 December 2020

37.

33537/21
Buzzi v. Italy
22/06/2021

Salvatore BUZZI
1955
Rome
Italian
 

Antonella MASCIA
Vérone

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 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)

Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a)

Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 37160 of 22 December 2020

38.

14266/22

Di Gennaro and Liardo v. Italy

10/03/2022

Crocifisso DI GENNARO

1981

Gela

Italian

Crocifissa LIARDO

1982

Gela

Italian

Anton Giulio LANA

Rome

Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

First applicant – declared socially dangerous

Second applicant – wife of the first applicant

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 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. 3, lett. (a)

Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a)

Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b)

39.

39136/22

Fuda and Others v. Italy

04/08/2022

Domenico FUDA

1971

Gioiosa Ionica

Italian

Valeria SAINATO

1979

Gioiosa Ionica

Italian

Debora FUDA

2005

Gioiosa Ionica

Italian

Giuseppe FUDA

2013

Gioiosa Ionica

Italian

Teresa FUDA

2002

Gioiosa Ionica

Italian

Roberta FUDA

2004

Gioiosa Ionica

Italian

Francesca FUDA

1993

Gioiosa Ionica

Italian

Antonella MASCIA
Vérone

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

First applicant - declared socially dangerous

Second applicant – wife of the first applicant

Third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants – children of the first and second applicants

Seventh applicant – daughter of the first applicant

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 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)

Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 14778 of 15 April 2022

40.

37157/22
Perciballi v. Italy
22/07/2022

Massimiliano PERCIBALLI
1968
Albano Laziale
Italian

Generoso PETRILLO
Rome

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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, 2 and 3 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 13910 of 11 April 2022

41.

51025/22

Piccirillo v. Italy

21/10/2022

Pasquale PICCIRILLO

1964

Caserta

Italian

Giuseppe PAVAN

Padova

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 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)

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 24317 of 23 June 2022

42.

31972/23

Ruffini v. Italy

11/08/2023

Aldo RUFFINI

Reggio Emilia

Italian

Dario BOLOGNESI

Milan

Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011

Declared socially dangerous

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 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv)

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 15704 of 13 April 2023