Published on 4 March 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 2929/13
Graziella ZANOTTI
against Italy
lodged on 5 December 2012
communicated on 16 February 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the delay on the part of the authorities to return to the applicant, after the adoption of a decision not to prosecute, the assets that had been seized in the context of a criminal investigation.
In particular, on 24 February 2012 several assets owned by the applicant – including movable and immovable properties, the shares of her company, and her bank accounts – were seized by the preliminary investigation judge (giudice per le indagini preliminari, “GIP”) of the Milano District Court, in the context of a criminal investigation concerning frauds, money laundering and usury. On 15 February 2013 the GIP adopted a decision not to prosecute on the ground that the mental element of the offence had not been made out (perché il fatto non costituisce reato), and ordered the immediate restitution of the seized assets to the applicant.
The applicant complains, in substance under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the fact that the seized assets were returned to her only in May 2014, fifteen months after the restitution order.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
In particular, was there a legitimate reason for retaining the applicant’s assets for fifteen months after the decision not to prosecute and the order to immediately return her the seized assets (see Akpaz Société à responsabilité limitée v. Turkey, no. 6800/09, § 99, 18 January 2022, Patrikova v. Bulgaria, no. 71835/01, § 98, 4 March 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, Raimondo v. Italy, no. 12954/87, § 36, 22 February 2004)? If so, was the measure proportionate to aim pursued?