Information Note on the Court’s case-law 246
December 2020
Edizioni Del Roma Societa Cooperativa A.R.L. and Edizioni del Roma S.R.L. v. Italy - 68954/13 and 70495/13
Judgment 10.12.2020 [Section I]
Article 6
Administrative proceedings
Article 6-1
Impartial tribunal
Independent tribunal
Sufficient judicial review of sanctions imposed after defective procedure conducted by administrative authority with consecutive roles of investigation and adjudication: no violation
Facts – Pecuniary sanctions were imposed by the Italian Telecoms Regulatory Authority (AGCOM) on the applicant companies, which carried on publishing activities and which, following the sanctions, lost the public financing they had previously been granted, leading to the insolvency of one of the companies.
Law – Article 6 § 1:
The pecuniary sanctions were criminal in nature, such that Article 6 § 1 was applicable under its criminal head.
(a) Whether the AGCOM procedure had been fair and whether it was an independent and impartial tribunal:
AGCOM’s rules provided for a degree of separation between the investigative organ and the body responsible for ruling on whether or not there had been an infringement and on the application of sanctions. The person in charge of the procedure had presented the accusations and carried out an investigation, the results of which were summarised in a report containing conclusions and proposals about the sanctions to be applied, and the final decision on sanctions fell exclusively to the commission.
However, the person in charge of the procedure and the commission were merely arms of the same administrative organ acting under the authority and supervision of the same chair. In this connection the Government had failed to show either the existence of safeguards in the various departments or the formal nature of either of the roles of the chair. In the Court’s view this had amounted to the consecutive exercise of investigative and adjudicatory roles within the same institution. In criminal matters such a combination was not compatible with the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1.
Lastly, the AGCOM procedure had not met all the requirements of Article 6, particularly as regards the equality of arms between prosecution and defence and the holding of a public hearing allowing for oral confrontation.
The finding that the AGCOM procedure was not in conformity with the principles of a fair trial was not, however, sufficient to find a violation of Article 6.
(b) Whether the applicants had access to a tribunal with full jurisdiction:
The decisions of AGCOM, an administrative authority, had been referred for subsequent scrutiny to two courts of full jurisdiction, the Regional Administrative Court and the Consiglio di Stato, which had both held public hearings.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
(See also Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, 18640/10 et al., 4 March 2014, Information Note 172)
© 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