Published on 3 July 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 29550/17
GRANDE ORIENTE D’ITALIA
against Italy
lodged on 13 April 2017
communicated on 13 June 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant – a freemasonry association – complains, under Articles 6, 8, 11 and 13 of the Convention, about the search and seizure of the list of its associates in two Italian regions, ordered by an inquiry committee of the Italian Parliament in the framework of investigations on relationships between freemasonry and organised crime in Italy.
In particular, the applicant association complains that the search and seizure were not in accordance with the law, were grossly disproportionate and affected both its right to respect for its home and its right to freedom of association.
Furthermore, the applicant complains about the lack of effective remedies against the decisions of the Parliament’s inquiry committee, maintaining that the domestic courts usually deny jurisdiction upon them, according to a well-established case-law.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for its “home”, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002-III)?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, considering the nature and the powers of Parliament’s inquiry committees, and necessary and proportionate in terms of Article 8 § 2 and Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, having regard to the extent of the search and seizure and the manner in which they were carried out, the aim of the committee’s investigations and the nature of personal data involved (see, for example, Brazzi v. Italy, no. 57278/11, § 38-51, 27 September 2018; Vinks and Ribicka v. Latvia, no. 28926/10, § 101-104, 30 January 2020; Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy, no. 35972/97, § 24-26, ECHR 2001‑VIII)?
3. Did the applicant have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaints under Article 8 and Article 11, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?