Published on 5 June 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 59233/17
Sergio GANGEMI
against Italy
lodged on 8 August 2017
communicated on 15 May 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s placement under special police supervision and the imposition of a compulsory residence order on him by the competent domestic court pursuant to Article 6 of Legislative Decree no. 159 of 6 September 2011 (Codice delle leggi antimafia e delle misure di prevenzione, “Decree no. 159/2011”). The applicant was declared socially dangerous pursuant to Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 (pericolosità generica or “ordinary dangerousness”) as a person who, on the basis of factual evidence, may be regarded as a habitual offender and who is habitually living off the proceeds of crimes.
The preventive measures imposed the following obligations on the applicant for a period of three years: to find a stable job; to lead an honest and law-abiding life and not give cause for suspicion; not to leave his domicile without reporting it to the police authority responsible for his supervision; to present himself to the police authority responsible for his supervision on Mondays and Fridays, between 4 and 6 p.m., and every time requested to do so; not to return home later than 10 p.m. or to leave home before 7.30 a.m., except in case of necessity and only after giving notice to the authorities in good time; not to keep or carry weapons; not to associate with persons who had a criminal record and who were subject to preventive or security measures; and to reside in the Municipality of Aprilia, located in the Lazio Region.
Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged lack of clarity and foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom the special police supervision, as a preventive measure, is applicable, and of the alleged vague and indeterminate content of the obligations imposed on him, including the compulsory residence order.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the interference with the applicant’s right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence in accordance with the law, within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4?
In particular:
(a) were letters (a) and (b) of Article 1 § 1 of Decree no. 159/2011 sufficiently precise, clear and foreseeable in their application and consequences and compatible with the rule of law, with regard to the individuals to whom special police supervision as a preventive measure is applicable (De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§ 117-18 and 126, 23 February 2017)?
(b) were the obligations imposed on the applicant sufficiently clear and determined (De Tommaso, cited above, §§ 119-22)?