MAERO v. ITALY and 48 other applications

Published on 29 January 2024

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 31115/12
Denis MAERO against Italy
and 48 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 9 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants’ details are summarised in the appended table.

The applications concern the failure to retrospectively apply the more favourable criminal law in respect of sanctions – domestically qualified as “administrative sanctions” rather than “penalties” – following amendments.

The domestic authorities imposed several administrative sanctions on the applicants. Pending the proceedings, the provisions on which the sanctions were based were amended either by limiting the grounds for responsibility or by modifying the amount of the fine, as detailed in the table.

The applicants allege a violation of Article 7 of the Convention with regard to the refusal by domestic authorities to retrospectively apply the more favourable criminal law with regard to the administrative sanctions.

In respect of applications nos. 31115/12, 44176/19, 33505/19, 8544/21, 10090/23, 10553/23, 17778/23, 17945/23 and 18168/23, the applicants also allege violations of other provisions of the Convention as detailed in the table.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Concerning all applications

1.  Is Article 7 applicable to the present cases? In particular, did the sanctions imposed by domestic authorities fall within the concept of “penalty” under Article 7 of the Convention (G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 210-1, 28 June 2018 and Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, §§ 94-101, 4 March 2014)?

2.  If so, did the domestic authorities carry out an adequate assessment of the applicability of the lex mitior principle to the administrative sanctions adopted in the present cases (compare Sinan Çetinkaya and Ağyar Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 74536/10, § 42, 24 May 2022)?

3.  In the affirmative, did the domestic authorities apply the more favourable criminal law as prescribed by Article 7 of the Convention (Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, §§ 107-9, 17 September 2009; Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 66, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Sinan Çetinkaya and Ağyar Çetinkaya v. Turkey, cited above)?

Concerning applications nos. 10090/23, 10553/23, 17778/23, 17945/23 and 18168/23

4.  Has the applicant company exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of all the complaints raised? Notably, which avenues were available and effective under the domestic law in the context of the applicant’s complaints (compare inter alia judgments nos. 16717/2004 and 10833/2020 of the Court of Cassation; and contrast judgments nos. 18988/2015 and 1845/2018 of the Court of Cassation)?

5.  Did the applicant company have a fair trial, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has the principle of legal certainty been respected, in light of the alleged divergence in the case-law of the Court of Cassation as regards the joint and several liability of the rental car company for road-traffic offences committed by the drivers or lessees of the rented vehicles (Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 116, 29 November 2016, Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, § 49-58, 20 October 2011, and Hayati Çelebi and others v. Turkey, no. 582/05, § 52, 9 February 2016)?

The parties are invited to submit references to the relevant domestic case‑law, where available.

Concerning application no. 31115/12

6.  Did the applicants have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did judgment no. 24329 of 21 November 2011 adequately state the reasons on which it was based (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 25‑30, Series A no. 303-A)?

7.  If Article 7 is applicable in the present case and in light of the domestic courts’ and of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s case-law at the material time, did the conduct for which the applicant was sanctioned constitute an offence under the national law, as envisaged by Article 7 of the Convention? In particular, was the interpretation of Article 5 §§ 2 and 6 of Law no. 119/2003 adopted by domestic courts in respect of the applicant reasonably foreseeable at the material time (see Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, §§ 77-80 and 91-93, ECHR 2013; compare Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09, § 103, 4 October 2016)?

8.  Did the sanction imposed on the applicant constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was the sanction proportionate to the aim pursued (see, mutatis mutandis, G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], cited above, §§ 302-4)?

Concerning applications nos. 33505/19, 44176/19 and 8544/21

9.  Is Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, §§ 82-86, ECHR 2003‑X)?

10.  If so, was the principle of the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the proceedings against the applicants?

In particular, did Article 3 of Law no. 689/1981 as interpreted under the domestic case-law, allegedly reversing the burden of proof, comply with that principle (Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 77, Series A no. 146; Telfner v. Austria, no. 33501/96, § 15, 20 March 2001; Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 141-A; and Klouvi v. France, no. 30754/03, § 41, 30 June 2011)?

11.  If Article 7 is applicable to the present case, did the domestic authorities require, for the purposes of punishment, a mental link disclosing an element of liability in the conduct of the perpetrators of the offence, in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention (see G.I.E.M S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], cited above, §§ 241-46 and Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, § 242, 26 September 2023)?

APPENDIX

List of cases

No.

Application no.
Case name
Introduction date

Applicant’s name
Year of birth / Registration date
Place of residence
Nationality

Representative’s name
Location

Domestic proceedings

Relevant provisions

Other admissible complaints

1.

31115/12
Maero v. Italy
11/05/2012

Denis MAERO
1972
Saluzzo
Italian

Mariano PROTTO
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority

Province of Torino

Role of the applicant: legal representative of the s.c.a.r.l. Cooperativa Latte Savoia Sei

Relevant conduct: violation of Article 5 §§ 2 and 6, Law Decree no. 49/2003 converted into Law no. 119/2003, imposing (a) the transmission to Region and Province of data relating to deliveries of milk (b) the duty to withhold the additional levy for milk delivered in excess and (c) the payment of the withheld amounts to the Agency of disbursements in agriculture (Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura).

Decision no. 438294
09/12/2004
Fine: 17,810,441.08 EUR
Decision no. 75369
03/03/2005
Fine: 5,811,977.17 EUR

Decision no. 6845/2005
11/01/2005
Fine: 5,729,827.77 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Alba District Court
R.G. nos. 3004/2005, 3028/2005, 3071/2005
Judgment no. 119/2005
20/09/2005

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 11583/2006
Judgment no. 24329/2011
21/11/2011

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 5 § 5 of Law Decree no. 49/2003, as converted into Law no. 119/2003 with amendments, imposing a fine equal to the amount of the levy.

Previous version of the provision:
Article 5 § 5 of Law Decree no. 49/2003, before its conversion into Law no. 119/2003 with amendments, imposing a fine proportional to the levy and, in any case, between 5,000 and 50,000 EUR.

Amendment:
Article 5 § 5 of Law Decree no. 49/2003 as amended by Article 2 § 1 of Law Decree no. 22/2005, imposing a fine proportional to the levy and, in any case, between 1,000 and 100,000 EUR.

Article 7: the applicant complains about the lack of legal certainty and foreseeability of the sanction imposed, claiming that national courts adopted different interpretations in relation to the duty to withhold the additional levy for milk delivered in excess. In particular, the applicant refers to the case-law of the Court of Cassation (judgments nos. 26434/2006 and 27180/2007 of the Plenary) which stated that there was no obligation to withhold the additional levy, but only a mere option to do so. The above-mentioned judgments were explicitly based on the European Court of Justice judgment of 29/04/1999

(Case C-288/97), according to which Council Regulation No 3950/92 should be interpreted in the sense that purchasers do not have an obligation to withhold the additional levy. In the applicant’s case, the Court of Cassation interpreted the domestic provisions in the sense that such an obligation exists (Court of Cassation judgments nos. 1236/2002 and 17106/2006).

Article 6: the applicant complains that the courts failed to provide proper reasoning. In particular, the applicant complains that the Court of Cassation failed to make reference to the alleged divergencies in the case law concerning the existence of an obligation to withhold the additional levy and to reason its choice to adopt an interpretation rather than the other (Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], 2017, § 84 and Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 36815/03,

§ 38, 14 January 2010).

Article 1 Protocol no. 1: the applicant complains that the sanction was disproportionate as the provision applied did not allow for it to be determined between a minimum and a maximum amount.

2.

62494/14
F.lli Grillo S.N.C. Di Grillo Placido E Sebastiano v. Italy
05/09/2014

F.LLI GRILLO S.N.C. DI GRILLO PLACIDO E SEBASTIANO
1981
Rometta Marea
Italian

Ferdinando MARULLO DI CONDOJANNI
Messina

Proceedings before the tax authority

Messina Tax Police
Supplementary tax assessment proceedings (processo verbale di costatazione) no. n./a. 27/04/1999

Relevant conduct: VAT evasion

1) tax assessment notice no. 840997 of 06/12/1999
2) tax assessment notice no. 840998 of 06/12/1999
3) tax assessment notice no. 840999 of 06/12/1999
4) tax assessment notice no. 20013666 of 06/12/1999

Proceedings before judicial authority

Provincial Tax Commission of Messina
R.G. no. 749/2000 + 3
Judgment no. 347/4/00
16/01/2001

Regional Tax Commission of Palermo (Section of Messina)
R.G. no. 837/02
Judgment no. 99/2/06
11/10/2006
 

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 30043/2007
Judgment no. 1860/2014
29/01/2014

Provision imposing the fine:
section 41 §6 of the Decree of the President of the Republic no. 633 of 26 October 1972

Amendments:
abrogation of section 41 §6 of the Decree of the President of the Republic no. 633 of

26 October 1972 and replacement of the sanction regime with exclusion of VAT recollection by articles 6 §8 and 16 §1(a) of Legislative Decree no. 471/1997 as interpreted by the Court of Cassation in judgments nos. 26126 and 26127 of 27/12/2010.

3.

27178/19
Bignami v. Italy
20/05/2019

Enrico Maria BIGNAMI
1957
Milan
Italian

Aldo BOZZI
Milan

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB

Role of the applicant: member of the board of statutory auditors of "Telecom Italia S.p.A."

Relevant conduct: violation of the duty of vigilance under Article 149 §1(a), (b) and (c) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in respect of the activity of Mr. S. and the relationship between "Telecom Italia S.p.A." and "O.C. S.p.A.".

Decision no. 19296
30/07/2015
Fine: 90,000 EUR

Proceedings before the judicial authority

Milan Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 773/2015
Judgment no. 13/2016
24/06/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 1942/2017
Judgment no. 126/2019
07/01/2019

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 193 §3(a) of Legislative

Decree no. 58/1998

Amendment:
Amendment of the sanction regime from 25,000-2,500,000 EUR to 10,000-1,500,000 by Article 5 of Legislative Decree

no. 72/2015.

4.

27827/19
Spiniello v. Italy
20/05/2019

Salvatore SPINIELLO
1951
Milan
Italian

Aldo BOZZI
Milan

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB

Role of the applicant: member of the board of statutory auditors of "Telecom Italia S.p.A."

Relevant conduct: violation of the duty of vigilance under Article 149 §1(b) and (c-bis) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in respect of the failure to inform the CONSOB that the press release concerning the issuance of a bond loan had not been approved by the board of directors.
Decision no. 19316
07/08/2015
Fine: 55,000 EUR
 

Proceedings before the judicial authority

Milan Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 770/2015
Judgment no. 39/2016

16/08/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 3144/2017
Judgment no. 5/2019
03/01/2019

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 193 §3(a) of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998

Amendment:
Amendment of the sanction regime from 25,000-2,500,000 EUR to 10,000-1,500,000 by Article 5 of Legislative Decree

no. 72/2015.

5.

27936/19
Bignami v. Italy
20/05/2019

Enrico Maria BIGNAMI
1957
Milan
Italian

Aldo BOZZI
Milan

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB

Role of the applicant: member of the board of statutory auditors of "Telecom Italia S.p.A."

Relevant conduct: violation of the duty of vigilance under Article 149 §1(b) and

(c-bis) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in respect of the failure to inform the CONSOB that the press release concerning the issuance of a bond loan had not been approved by the board of directors.
Decision no. 19316
07/08/2015
Fine: 55,000 EUR
Proceedings before the judicial authority

Milan Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 774/2015
Judgment no. 30/2016
18/07/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 1939/2017
Judgment no. 812/2019
15/01/2019

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 193 §3(a) of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998

Amendment:
Amendment of the sanction regime from 25,000-2,500,000 EUR to 10,000-1,500,000 by Article 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015.

6.

27938/19
Spiniello v. Italy
20/05/2019

Salvatore SPINIELLO
1951
Milan
Italian

Aldo BOZZI
Milan

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB

Role of the applicant: member of the board of statutory auditors of "Telecom Italia S.p.A."
Relevant conduct: violation of the duty of vigilance under Article 149 §1(a), (b) and (c) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in respect of the activity of Mr. S. and the relationship between "Telecom Italia S.p.A." and "O.C. S.p.A.".

Decision no. 19296
30/07/2015
Fine: 90,000 EUR

Proceedings before the judicial authority

Milan Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 772/2015
Judgment no. 29/2016
04/07/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 3160/2017
Judgment no. 33047/18
20/12/2018

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 193 §3(a) of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998

Amendment:
Amendment of the sanction regime from 25,000-2,500,000 EUR to 10,000-1,500,000 by Article 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015.

7.

33505/19
Pisaneschi v. Italy
12/06/2019

Andrea PISANESCHI
1959
Siena
Italian

Andrea SACCUCCI
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority

Bank of Italy
Proceedings no. 908783/13
04/10/2013

Role of the applicant: member of the board for directors of "Monte dei Paschi di Siena".

Relevant conduct: (1) failure to provide information and submission of false information to the supervisory body of the Bank of Italy under Articles 51 §1 and 55 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993; (2) absence of the minimum budget requirement under Article 67 §1(a) of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993; (3) disregard for budget techniques under Article 9 §1 of Legislative Decree

no. 38/2005 and Articles 5 §1 and 45 of Legislative Decree no. 87/1992.

Decision no. 493/2013
08/10/2013
Fine: 129,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Rome Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 4375/2015
Judgment no. 5208/2016
05/09/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 6132/2017
Judgment no. 32135/2018
12/12/2018

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993


Amendments:
(a) introduction of Article 144-ter of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 by Article 1 §52 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 (including Articles 51, 55 and 67 of the decree), and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

(b) introduction of Article 144-quarater of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 by Article 1 §52 of Legislative Decree

no. 72/2015 introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

Article 7: the applicant complains of the failure by the domestic courts to duly assess and establish a mental link between the conduct and the offence committed.

Article 6 § 2: the applicant complains that domestic courts, in applying the presumption set by Article 3 of Law no. 689/1981, shifted the burden of proof on the defence.

8.

44176/19
Pisaneschi and Others v. Italy
09/08/2019

Andrea PISANESCHI
1959
Siena
Italian
Fabio BORGHI
1952
Castelnuovo Berardenga
Italian

Graziano COSTANTINI
1955
Siena
Italian

Alfredo MONACI
1955
Siena
Italian

Ernesto RABIZZI
1940
Sine
Italian

Andrea SACCUCCI
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority
CONSOB
proceedings no. 20131876-11216/2014
n./a.
Role of the applicants: members of the board of directors of "Monte dei Paschi di Siena".

Relevant conduct: violation of duty to provide the public with prospectus in case of offer of stocks under Article 94 §1-2 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 with regard to operation “Fresh 2008” and other connected activities.

Decision no. 18924
2105/2014
Fines
Pisaneschi: 55,000 EUR
Borghi: 55,000 EUR
Costantini: 45,000 EUR
Monaci: 45,000 EUR
Rabizzi: 50,000 EUR

Proceedings before the judicial authority

Florence Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 443/2014
Decision no. 692/2016
27/04/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 27685/2016
Judgment no. 4099/2019
12/02/2019

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Amendments:
(a) amendment of Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by respectively by Article 5 §§4 and 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

(b) introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by Article 5 §5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015 introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

Article 7: the applicants complain of the failure by the domestic courts to duly assess and establish a mental link between the conduct and the offence committed.

Article 6 § 2: the applicants complain that domestic courts, in applying the presumption set by Article 3 of Law no. 689/1981, shifted the burden of proof on the defence.

9.

48355/19
Misseri v. Italy
04/09/2019

Carmelo MISSERI
1956
Floridia
Italian

Andrea SCUDERI
Catania

Proceedings before the administrative authority

Bank of Italy
Proceedings no. 38055/13
14/01/2013

Role of the applicant: member of the board for directors of "Credito Aretuseo Societa’ Cooperativa"

Relevant conduct: (1) failure to overview risks and consequences on the financial conditions of the bank under Article 53 §1 (a), (b) and (d); and §3 (d) of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993; (2) failure to provide relevant information to the supervisory body of the Bank of Italy under Article 51 of Legislative Decree

no. 385/1993.

Decision no. 557/2013
12/11/2013
Fine: 22,000 EUR
Proceedings before judicial authority

Rome Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 50085/2015
Decision no. 1884/2016
23/02/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 22114/2016
Judgment no. 6239/2019
04/03/2019

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 144 of Legislative Decree

no. 385/1993

Amendment:
introduction of Article 144-ter and 144-quater of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 by Article 1 §52 of Legislative Decree

no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 (including Article 53 of the decree), and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

10.

55251/19
Gorgoni v. Italy
10/10/2019

Lorenzo GORGONI
1942
Cutrofiano
Italian

Francesco CARBONETTI
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 20043581/2
18/05/2004

Role of the applicant: vice-president, president, member of the executive committee and member of the board of directors of "Banca 121".

Relevant conduct: violation of Articles 21 §1(a) and (d) of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998 and Sections 56, 26 §1(e), 28, 29, 32, 60 and 69 of CONSOB regulation no. 11522/1998 in respect of the issuance of financial products hiding information to the clients with a view to ensure earnings to the bank.

Decision no. 59326 by the Ministry of Economy and Finance
30/05/2005
Fine: 133,600 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Lecce Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 205/2005
Decision no. 4823/2006
06/06/2006

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 21105/2007 +1
Judgment no. 25824/11
02/12/2011

Lecce Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 1601/2012
Decision no. 2017/2016
28/09/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 7585/2017
Judgment no. 10179/2019
11/04/2019

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998

Amendments:
(a) amendment of Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by respectively by Article 5 §§4 and 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

(b) introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by Article 5 §5 of Legislative Decree

no. 72/2015 introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

11.

10497/20
Di Tanno v. Italy
08/02/2020

Tommaso DI TANNO
1949
Rome
Italian

Eugenio BRUTI LIBERATI
Milan

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. n./a.
19/04/2013

Role of the applicant: president of the board of statutory auditors of bank "Monte dei Paschi di Siena".

Relevant conduct: (1) failure to identify and manage conflicts of interest raised by the issuance of “Casaforte” stocks in breach of Article 21 §1-bis (a) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and Articles 23 and 25 of the Regulation of the Bank of Italy and CONSOB of

29 October 2007; (2) failure to adopt procedural safeguards to overview the adequacy of specific financial activities and repeated commission of irregularities in their enforcement in breach of Article 21 §1 (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in conjunction with Article 15 of the Regulation of the Bank of Italy and CONSOB, Article 21 §1 (a) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and Articles 39 and 40 of the CONSOB Regulation no. 16190 of 29 October 2007; (3) failure to adopt a stable and coherent mechanism to overview stocks’ pricing in breach of Article 21 §1 (a) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in conjunction with Article 21 §1 (d) of the same Decree and Article 15 §1 of the Regulation of the Bank of Italy and CONSOB of 29 October 2007.

Decision no. 18856/14
09/04/2014
Fine: 135,000 EUR


Proceedings before judicial authority
Florence Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 369/2014
Decision no. 1133/2016
09/07/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 155/2017
Judgment no. 21171/2019
08/08/2019

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998

Amendments:
(a) amendment of Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by respectively by Article 5 §§4 and

5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

(b) introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by Article 5 §5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015 introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

12.

10967/20
Gorgoni v. Italy
18/02/2020

Lorenzo GORGONI
1942
Cutrofiano
Italian

Francesco CARBONETTI
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. n./a.
19/04/2013

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of bank "Monte dei Paschi di Siena".

Relevant conduct: (1) failure to identify and manage conflicts of interest raised by the issuance of “Casaforte” stocks in breach of Article 21 §1-bis (a) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and Articles 23 and 25 of the Regulation of the Bank of Italy and CONSOB of 29 October 2007; (2) failure to adopt procedural safeguards to overview the adequacy of specific financial activities and repeated commission of irregularities in their enforcement in breach of Article 21 §1 (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in conjunction with Article 15 of the Regulation of the Bank of Italy and CONSOB, Article 21 §1 (a) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and Articles 39 and 40 of the CONSOB Regulation no. 16190 of 29 October 2007; (3) failure to adopt a stable and coherent mechanism to overview stocks’ pricing in breach of Article 21 §1 (a) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in conjunction with Article 21 §1 (d) of the same Decree and Article 15 §1 of the Regulation of the Bank of Italy and CONSOB of 29 October 2007.

Decision no. 18856/14
09/04/2014
Fine: 150,000 EUR



Proceedings before judicial authority

Florence Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 340/2014
Decision no. 1123/2016
08/07/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 4189/2017
Judgment no. 16326/2019
18/06/2019

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Amendments:
(a) amendment of Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by respectively by Article 5 §§4 and 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

(b) introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by Article 5 §5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015 introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

13.

16000/20
Campaini v. Italy
17/03/2020

Turiddo CAMPAINI
1940
Empoli
Italian

Francesco CARBONETTI
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. n./a.
19/04/2013

Role of the applicant: vice-president of the board of directors of bank "Monte dei Paschi di Siena".

Relevant conduct: (1) failure to identify and manage conflicts of interest raised by the issuance of “Casaforte” stocks in breach of Article 21 §1-bis (a) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and Articles 23 and 25 of the Regulation of the Bank of Italy and CONSOB of 29 October 2007; (2) failure to adopt procedural safeguards to overview the adequacy of specific financial activities and repeated commission of irregularities in their enforcement in breach of Article 21 §1 (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in conjunction with Article 15 of the Regulation of the Bank of Italy and CONSOB, Article 21 §1 (a) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and Articles 39 and 40 of the CONSOB Regulation no. 16190 of 29 October 2007; (3) failure to adopt a stable and coherent mechanism to overview stocks’ pricing in breach of Article 21 §1 (a) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 in conjunction with Article 21 §1 (d) of the same Decree and Article 15 §1 of the Regulation of the Bank of Italy and CONSOB of 29 October 2007.

Decision no. 18856/14
09/04/2014
Fine: 150,000 EUR



Proceedings before judicial authority
Florence Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 342/2014
Decision no.1128/2016
08/07/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 3658/2017
Judgment no. 24080/2019
26/09/2019

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998


Amendments:
(a) amendment of Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by respectively by Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

(b) introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by Article 5 §5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015 introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

14.

50950/20
Trulli v. Italy
06/11/2020

Stefano TRULLI
1968
Cinto Caomaggiore
Italian

Andrea CONSELVAN
Treviso

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB

Proceedings no. 41776/2016
29/02/2016

Relevant conduct: violation of Article 18 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, ruling professional investment services with the public.

Decision no. 19753
05/10/2016
Fine: 80,000 EUR


Proceedings before the judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 16/2017

Judgment no. 22/2017
26/05/2017

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 455/2018
Judgment no. 8787/2020
12/05/2020

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Amendment:
Amendment to Article 190 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 by Article 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, abrogating the sanction in case of violation of Article 18 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

15.

53801/20
Costantini and Gorgoni v. Italy
20/11/2020

Graziano COSTANTINI
1955
Siena
Italian

Lorenzo GORGONI
1942
Cutrofiano
Italian

Andrea SACCUCCI
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority

Bank of Italy
Proceedings no. 689034/13
19/07/2013

Role of the applicants: members of the board of directors and of the committee for remuneration of "Monte dei Paschi di Siena"

Relevant conduct: violation of the regulations ruling policies and practices in respect of remuneration and incentives under Article 53 §1(d) of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993.

Decision no. 399/2013
23/07/2013
Fine: 129,110 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Rome Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 5611/2015
Decision no. 4059/2017
26/04/2017

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 28309/2017
Judgment no. 9371/2020
21/05/2020

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993

Amendment:
Introduction of Article 144-ter and 144-quater of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 by Article 1 §52 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993, and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

16.

8544/21
Coccheri v. Italy
27/01/2021

Lucia COCCHERI
1950
Poggibonsi
Italian

Andrea SACCUCCI
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority

Bank of Italy
Proceedings no. 908783/13
04/10/2013

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of "Monte dei Paschi di Siena".

Relevant conduct: (1) failure to provide information and submission of false information to the supervisory body of the Bank of Italy under Articles 51 §1 and 55 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993; (2) absence of the minimum budget requirement under Article 67 §1(a) of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993; (3) disregard for budget techniques under Article 9 §1 of Legislative Decree no. 38/2005 and Articles 5 §1 and 45 of Legislative Decree no. 87/1992.
Decision no. 493/2013
08/10/2013
Fine: 116,500 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Rome Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 4379/2015
Judgment no. 2022/2017
27/03/2017

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 26018/2017
Judgment no.16517/2020
31/07/2020

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993

Amendments:
(a) introduction of Article 144-ter of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 by Article 1 §52 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 (including Articles 51, 55 and 67 of the decree), and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

(b) introduction of Article 144-quarater of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 by Article 1 §52 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015 introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

Article 7: the applicant complains of the failure by the domestic courts to duly assess and establish a mental link between the conduct and the offence committed.

Article 6 § 2: the applicant complains that domestic courts, in applying the presumption set by Article 3 of Law no. 689/1981, shifted the burden of proof on the defence.

17.

11678/21
Campaini v. Italy
19/02/2021

Turiddo CAMPAINI
1940
Empoli
Italian

Andrea SACCUCCI
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority

Bank of Italy
Proceedings no. 689034/13
19/07/2013

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of "Monte dei Paschi di Siena"

Relevant conduct: violation of the regulations ruling policies and practices in respect of remuneration and incentives under Article 53 §1(d) of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993.

Decision no. 399/2013
23/07/2013
Fine: 90,000 EUR

 

Proceedings before judicial authority
Rome Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 4374/2015
Judgment no. 10188/2016
02/12/2016

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 1001/2018
Judgment no. 17291/2020
19/08/2020

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 144 of Legislative Decree

no. 385/1993

Amendment:
Introduction of Article 144-ter and 144-quater of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 by Article 1 §52 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993, and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

18.

24963/21
Monaci v. Italy
20/04/2021

Alfredo MONACI
1955
Siena
Italian

Andrea SACCUCCI
Rome

Proceedings before the administrative authority

Bank of Italy
Proceedings no. 689034/13
19/07/2013

Role of the applicants: member of the board of directors of "Monte dei Paschi di Siena"

Relevant conduct: violation of the regulations ruling policies and practices in respect of remuneration and incentives under Article 53 §1(d) of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993.

Decision no. 399/2013
23/07/2013
Fine: 90,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Rome Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 4372/2015
Judgment no. 8038/2017
21/12/2017

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 19774/2020
Judgment no. 23554/2020
27/10/2020

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993

Amendment:
Introduction of Articles 144-ter and 144-quater of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993 by Article 1 §52 of Legislative Decree

no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the company for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 144 of Legislative Decree no. 385/1993, and limiting to specific cases of the responsibility of members of the company’s bodies.

19.

27214/22
Bianchi v. Italy
23/05/2022

Alessandro BIANCHI
1944
Verona
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority
Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 470/2017
Judgment no. 52/2018
03/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 35194/2018
Judgment no. 1770/2022
20/01/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

20.

28376/22
Breganze de Capnist v. Italy
23/05/2022

Marino BREGANZE DE CAPNIST
1947
Chioggia
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: Vice-President of the board of directors and of the shareholders committee of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 120,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority
Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 473/2017
Judgment no. 45/2018
03/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 34768/2018
Judgment no. 5347/2022
18/02/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

21.

28569/22
Zigliotto v. Italy
01/06/2022

Giuseppe ZIGLIOTTO
1964
Longare
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB

Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 509/2017
Judgment no. 48/2018
03/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 36121/2018
Judgment no. 5345/2022
18/02/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

22.

30029/22
Breganze de Capnist v. Italy
06/06/2022

Marino BREGANZE DE CAPNIST
1947
Chioggia
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: Vice-President of the board of directors and member of the shareholders committee of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1(a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 155,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 474/2017
Judgment no. 21/2018
20/03/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 30567/2018
Judgment no. 4519/2022
11/02/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

23.

31255/22
Fantoni v. Italy
24/06/2022

Giovanni FANTONI
1956
Gemona del Friuli
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1(a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 150,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 524/2017
Judgment no. 118/2018
28/09/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 11180/2019
Judgment no. 5344/2022
18/02/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

24.

31849/22
Tognana v. Italy
15/06/2022

Nicola TOGNANA
1952
Treviso
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1 (a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 150,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 507/2017
Judgment no. 28/2018
22/03/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 31283/2018
Judgment no. 5362/2022
08/02/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

25.

36603/22
Zuccato v. Italy
13/07/2022

Roberto ZUCCATO
1952
Zanè
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1 (a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 150,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority
Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 511/2017
Judgment no. 38/2018
22/04/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 34014/2018
Judgment no. 1769/2022
20/01/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

26.

36921/22
Pavan v. Italy
15/07/2022

Gianfranco PAVAN
1937
Vicenza
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing (Article and 21 § 1 (a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 95,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 425/2017
Judgment no. 32/2018

27/03/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 32372/2018
Judgment no. 1739/2022
20/01/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

27.

36937/22
Sbabo v. Italy
15/07/2022

Fiorenzo SBABO
1944
Schio
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 487/2017
Judgment no. 123/2018
25/10/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 13519/2019
Judgment no. 1741/2022
21/01/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

28.

36970/22
Bianchi v. Italy
13/07/2022

Alessandro BIANCHI
1944
Verona
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1 (a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 115,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority
Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 471/2017
Judgment no. 27/2018
22/03/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 31285/2018
Judgment no. 1740/2022
20/01/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

29.

38254/22
Piussi v. Italy
27/07/2022

Laura PIUSSI
1953
Udine
Italian

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of statutory auditors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998
Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 534/2017
Judgment no. 57/2018
09/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 36329/2018
Judgment no. 13346/2022
28/04/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

30.

38968/22
Monorchio v. Italy
03/08/2022

Andrea MONORCHIO
1939
Rome
Italian

Andrea PISANESCHI
Siena

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 482/2017
Judgment no. 56/2018
03/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 35196/2018
Judgment no. 13345/2022
28/04/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;
c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

31.

39232/22
Monorchio v. Italy
03/08/2022

Andrea MONORCHIO
1939
Rome
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: Vice-President of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1 (a) and d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 150,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 483/2017
Judgment no. 62/2018
10/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 34769/2018
Judgment no. 13337/2022
28/04/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

32.

39265/22
Zuccato v. Italy
03/08/2022

Roberto ZUCCATO
1952
Zanè
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 512/2017
Judgment no. 59/2018
09/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 36332/2018
Judgment no. 13340/2022
28/04/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

33.

39267/22
Tibaldo v. Italy
03/08/2022

Giorgio TIBALDO
1949
Jolanda di Savoia
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1 (a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 155,000 EUR
Proceedings before judicial authority
 

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 497/2017
Judgment no. 22/2018
20/03/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 30575/2018
Judgment no. 13341/2022
28/04/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

34.

39269/22
Domenichelli v. Italy
03/08/2022

Vittorio DOMENICHELLI
1948
Fiesso d’Artico
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority
 

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1(a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 150,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority
 

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 477/2017
Judgment no. 39/2018
20/04/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 32807/2018
Judgment no. 13339/2022
28/04/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

35.

43902/22
Piussi v. Italy
06/09/2022

Laura PIUSSI
1953
Udine
Italian

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1 (a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 160,000 EUR
Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 533/2017
Judgment no. 35/2018
10/04/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 32812/2018
Judgment no. 18032/2022
06/06/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

36.

45816/22
Zigliotto v. Italy
15/09/2022

Giuseppe ZIGLIOTTO
1964
Longare
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1 (a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 160,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 508/2017
Judgment no. 26/2018
22/03/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 31282/2018
Judgment no. 15927/2022
18/05/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

37.

46143/22
Macola v. Italy
19/09/2022

Maria Carla MACOLA
1937
Padua
Italian

Antonio LOVISETTO
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority
CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016

Role of the applicant: Vice-President of the board of directors and member of the shareholders committee of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing; incorrect information provided to the Consob following a request for information (Articles 8 and 21 § 1 (a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 125,000 EUR
Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 501/2017
Judgment no. 34/2018
03/04/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 32338/2018
Judgment no. 16275/2022
19/05/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.

Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

38.

46153/22
Macola v. Italy
19/09/2022

Maria Carla MACOLA
1937
Padua
Italian

Antonio LOVISETTO
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 500/2017
Judgment no. 61/2018
10/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 34773/2018
Judgment no. 16274/2022
19/05/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

39.

47232/22
Domenichelli v. Italy
27/09/2022

Vittorio DOMENICHELLI
1948
Fiesso d’Artico
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 476/2017
Judgment no. 55/2018
03/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 35505/2018
Judgment no. 17394/2022
30/05/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

40.

47237/22
Sbabo v. Italy
27/09/2022

Fiorenzo SBABO
1944
Schio
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43144/2016
29/03/2016
Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: failure to adopt adequate procedures in assessing the adequacy of operations; irregular behaviour in the financing granted to customers for the purchase of own shares, which led to an alteration of the investment decision-making process by customers; failure to adopt adequate procedures for the management of customer orders; failure to adopt adequate procedures regarding share pricing (Article 21 § 1(a) and (d) of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998; Articles 15, 19 and 21 of the Joint Regulations of the Bank of Italy/Consob)

Decision no. 19935/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 95,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 488/2017
Judgment no. 37/2018
20/04/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 34015/2018
Judgment no. 17393/2022
30/05/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Art. 190 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, sanctioning the violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF and of provisions issued by the Bank of Italy of by Consob with a fine between 2,500 and 250,000 EUR.
Amendments:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases and amending the sanction for violation of Articles 8 and 21 TUF to a fine between 5,000 and 5 million EUR;

b) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, introducing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

41.

47983/22
Tibaldo v. Italy
30/09/2022

Giorgio TIBALDO
1949
Jolanda di Savoia
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors and of the shareholders committee of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 120,000 EUR
 

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 496/2017
Judgment no. 47/2018
03/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 34767/2018
Judgment no. 10831/22
06/06/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

42.

48400/22
Tognana v. Italy
27/09/2022

Nicola TOGNANA
1952
Treviso
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 506/2017
Judgement no. 53/2018
03/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 34767/2018
Judgement no. 17395/22
30/05/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

43.

55291/22
Pavan v. Italy
21/11/2022

Gianfranco PAVAN
1937
Vicenza
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 421/2017
Judgment no. 44/2018
03/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 35504/2018
Judgment no. 1771/2022
20/01/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.
 

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

44.

56496/22
Fantoni v. Italy
21/11/2022

Giovanni FANTONI
1956
Gemona del Friuli
Italian

Gianluca ROMAGNOLI
Padua

Proceedings before the administrative authority

CONSOB
Proceedings no. 43518/2016
01/04/2016

Role of the applicant: member of the board of directors of the bank "Banca Popolare di Vicenza".

Relevant conduct: public offering of shares without the prior publication of a prospectus as required by Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998

Decision no. 19934/2017
30/03/2017
Fine: 100,000 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority

Venice Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 525/2017
Judgment no. 67/2018
30/05/2018

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 36327/2018
Judgment no. 5346/2022
18/02/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998, establishing an administrative fine ranging from 100,000 to 2 million EUR for violations of Art. 94 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

Amendment:
a) Introduction of Article 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 5 of Legislative Decree no 72/2015, limiting the responsibility of members of the bank’s body to specific cases;

b) Amendment of Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, amending the sanction for violation of Article 94 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998 to a fine between 25,000 EUR and 5 million EUR; and introduction of Article 191 § 2-bis, by Article 5 § 6 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, maintaining the responsibility of the bank for breaches of the provisions listed under Article 191 § 1 of Legislative Decree

no. 58/1998 and limiting the responsibility of members of the bank to the cases provided by Art. 190-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998;

c) Introduction of Article 194-bis of Legislative Decree no. 58/1998, by Article 5 § 14 of Legislative Decree no. 72/2015, providing a list of relevant criteria to determine the amount of the fine.

45.

10090/23
Sicily By Car S.P.A. v. Italy
18/02/2023

SICILY BY CAR S.P.A.
1963
Bolzano
Italian

Calogero Valerio SCIMEMI
Milan

Relevant conduct: joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of a vehicle for road traffic offences committed by the drivers/lessees (Art. 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 before its amendment by Law no. 156/2021)

Following imposition of fines by several Municipalities, the collection agency SERIT Sicilia S.p.A. issued the payment bill no. 296 2012 00087194 48
Fine: 44,160.60 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority:

Tribunal of Palermo
R.G. no. 50968/2012
Judgment no. 5438/2014
10/11/2014

Palermo Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 797/2015
Judgment no. 335/2019
20/02/2019

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 21630/2019
Judgment no. 32921/2022
09/11/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code)

Amendment:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code) as amended by Article 1 § 1 of Law Decree no. 121/2021 converted into Law

no. 156/2021, excluding the joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of vehicles for road traffic offences committed by drivers/lessees.

Art. 6 § 1: the applicant complains of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure legal certainty, due to a divergence in the case-law of the Court of Cassation as regards the existence of the joint and several liability of the lessor for road-traffic offences committed by the drivers or lessees of the rented vehicles. The applicant refers to case-law of the Court of Cassation (judgments nos. 9328/1998, 16717/2004 and decision no. 10833/2020 and Circular no. 300/A/48507/113/2 of 15/01/1994 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs) according to which, the responsibility of the rental car company is excluded whenever it communicates to the authorities all the information necessary to identify the lessee of the vehicle. According to an opposite interpretation (Court of Cassation judgment no. 18988/2015, Plenary judgment no. 22080/17 and decision no. 1845/2018), which was applied in the applicant’s case, the communication of the lessee’s information is irrelevant, as the aim pursued by Article 196 of the Road Traffic Code is to ensure the payment of the fines by establishing the joint and several responsibility of the easily identifiable lessor of the vehicle.

46.

10553/23
Sicily By Car S.P.A. v. Italy
18/02/2023

SICILY BY CAR S.P.A.
1963
Bolzano
Italian

Calogero Valerio SCIMEMI
Milan

Relevant conduct: joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of a vehicle for road traffic offences committed by the drivers/lessees (Art. 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 before its amendment by Law no. 156/2021)

Following imposition of fines by several Municipalities, the collection agency SERIT Sicilia S.p.A. issued the payment bill no. 296 2011 00695896 82
Fine: 28,013.39 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority:

Tribunal of Palermo
R.G. no. 50966/2012
Judgment no. 5335/2014
04/11/2014

Palermo Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 799/2015
Judgment no. 333/2019
20/02/2019

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 21626/2019
Judgment no. 32921/2022
09/11/2022

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code)

Amendment:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code) as amended by Article 1 § 1 of Law Decree no. 121/2021 converted into Law no. 156/2021, excluding the joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of vehicles for road traffic offences committed by drivers/lessees.

The applicant raises a complaint under Article 6 § 1 identical to the one raised in application Sicily by Car S.p.A. v. Italy no. 10090/23.

47.

17778/23
Sicily By Car S.P.A. v. Italy
21/04/2023

SICILY BY CAR S.P.A.
1963
Bolzano
Italian

Calogero Valerio SCIMEMI
Milan

Relevant conduct: joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of a vehicle for road traffic offences committed by the drivers/lessees (Art. 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 before its amendment by Law no. 156/2021)

Following imposition of fines by the Municipality of Milan, the collection unit of the Municipality issued the payment order no. 20160430037190000000101
31/03/2016
Fine: 332,804.00 EUR


Proceedings before judicial authority

Tribunal of Milan
R.G. no. 34737/2016
Judgment no. 6678/2019
05/07/2019

Milan Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 3009/2019
Judgment no. 402/2020
31/01/2020

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 11642/2020
Judgment no. 510/2023
11/01/2023

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code)

Amendment:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code) as amended by Article 1 § 1 of Law Decree

no. 121/2021 converted into Law

no. 156/2021, excluding the joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of vehicles for road traffic offences committed by drivers/lessees.

The applicant raises a complaint under Article 6 § 1 identical to the one raised in application Sicily by Car S.p.A. v. Italy no. 10090/23.

48.

17945/23
Sicily By Car S.P.A. v. Italy
21/04/2023

SICILY BY CAR S.P.A.
1963
Bolzano
Italian

Calogero Valerio SCIMEMI
Milan

Relevant conduct: joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of a vehicle for road traffic offences committed by the drivers/lessees (Art. 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 before its amendment by Law no. 156/2021)

Following imposition of fines by the Municipality of Milan, the collection unit of the Municipality issued the payment order no. 20160430036100000000181
05/04/2016
Fine: 60,935.00 EUR


Proceedings before judicial authority:

Tribunal of Milan
R.G. no. 34735/2016
Judgment no. 6675/2019
05/07/2019

Milan Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 3010/2019
Judgment no. 403/2020
31/01/2020

Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 12733/2020
Judgment no. 1383/2023
18/01/2023

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree

no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code)

Amendment:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code) as amended by Article 1 § 1 of Law Decree no. 121/2021 converted into Law

no. 156/2021, excluding the joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of vehicles for road traffic offences committed by drivers/lessees.

The applicant raises a complaint under Article 6 § 1 identical to the one raised in application Sicily by Car S.p.A. v. Italy no. 10090/23.

49.

18168/23
Sicily By Car Spa v. Italy
21/04/2023

SICILY BY CAR S.P.A.
1963
Bolzano
Italian

Calogero Valerio SCIMEMI
Milan

Relevant conduct: joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of a vehicle for road traffic offences committed by the drivers/lessees (Art. 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 before its amendment by Law no. 156/2021)

Following imposition of fines by several Municipalities, the collection agency SERIT Sicilia S.p.A. issued the payment bill no. 296 2012 00471060 10
Fine: 41.321,94 EUR

Proceedings before judicial authority:
Tribunal of Palermo
R.G. no. 50967/2012
Judgment no. 5437/2012
10/11/2014

Palermo Court of Appeal
R.G. no. 800/2015
Judgment no. 1825/2019
19/09/2019
Court of Cassation
R.G. no. 12734/2020
Judgment no. 1382/2023
18/01/2023

Provision imposing the fine:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code)

Amendment:
Article 196 of Legislative Decree no. 285/1992 (Road Traffic Code) as amended by Article 1 § 1 of Law Decree no. 121/2021 converted into Law no. 156/2021, excluding the joint and several liability of the owner/lessor of vehicles for road traffic offences committed by drivers/lessees.

The applicant raises a complaint under Article 6 § 1 identical to the one raised in application Sicily by Car S.p.A. v. Italy no. 10090/23.