CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA4B8EC36 { width:154.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 12592/20 Monica Ilaria CAMPEGGI against Italy   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28   November 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Gilberto Felici , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   12592/20) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 February 2020 by an Italian national, Ms Monica Ilaria Campeggi (“the applicant”), who was born in 1973, lives in Milan and was represented by Mr M. Pozzi, a lawyer practising in Milan; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 5 § 1 of the Convention to the Italian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the applicant’s arrest and police custody in connection with an identity check. 2.     On 4 April 2015, after having criticised an on-going police operation, the applicant was requested to identify herself. Since she did not provide identity papers, she was taken to the police station pursuant to Article   349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) to verify her identity. 3.     The applicant was kept in custody for more than six hours. 4.     In May 2015 the applicant lodged with the Milan Public Prosecutor Office a criminal complaint for abuse of office ( abuso d’ufficio ) against the police officers who had placed her in custody. A criminal investigation was opened against the officers. 5.     In the criminal proceedings instituted against the officers, the applicant joined as a plaintiff ( parte civile ) in order to obtain compensation for the damage allegedly suffered. 6.     In October 2017 the Milan District Court convicted Mr P.G., one of the officers, finding that: (i) the arrest of the applicant had not been justified and had had a punitive purpose since there had not been sufficient grounds to believe that she had given false personal details and no adequate reasons had been provided for the arrest; and (ii) the officer had not immediately informed the prosecutor of the arrest, which he was obliged to do. 7.     Upon appeal by Mr P.G., the Milan Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance judgment and acquitted him. It found, in particular, that Mr P.G. had been acting in accordance with his duties since he had followed established practice to take a suspect to the police station for identity verification, when that person did not provide identity papers. The Court of Appeal further found that the officer’s omission to inform the public prosecutor of the arrest, if at variance with established practice, could have been due to an oversight, not deliberate conduct. 8.     On 10 April 2019 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and confirmed the Court of Appeal’s findings. 9 .     The reasoning of the judgment was filed with the Registry of the Court of Cassation on 4 July 2019. 10.     The applicant complained that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention had been violated as her detention had been contrary to the relevant rules of domestic law and could not be justified under sub-paragraph (b) of the provision. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 11.     The Government raised two preliminary objections, arguing that the application had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit [1] and that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. 12.     The applicant contested the Government’s submissions. 13.     The Court considers that it is not necessary to address the Government’s objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 14.     Where, as in the present case, domestic law does not provide for service of the decision, the Court has considered it appropriate to take the date the decision was finalised as the starting-point of the six-month time-limit, that being when the parties were definitely able to find out its content ( see Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 30, ECHR 1999-II; Piętka v.   Poland , no. 34216/07, § 44, 16 October 2012; and Çolakoğlu v. Turkey , no.   29503/03, § 26, 20 October 2009). Moreover, the Court has consistently held that, with the purpose of complying with the six-month rule, it is incumbent on an interested party to display special diligence in the defence of his interests and to take the necessary steps to apprise himself or herself of developments in the proceedings ( see Akif Hasanov v. Azerbaijan , no.   7268/10, § 28, 19 September 2019). 15.     In the present case, the final domestic decision was adopted on 10   April 2019 and filed with the Registry of the Court of Cassation on 4 July 2019 (see paragraph 9 above). The latter is the moment in which the applicant was definitely able to find out its content and, therefore, from which the six ‑ month time-limit started running. 16.     In the light of the above, the time-limit expired on 4 January 2020, whereas the present application was lodged on 26 February 2020, outside of that time-limit. 17.     The fact that the applicant’s representative asked the Registry of the Court of Cassation whether the decision had been finalised on 17   April, 3   May, 3 June, 2 July and 4 September 2019, and obtained a copy only on 6   September 2019, does not alter this conclusion since, at that point, it should have been clear to the applicant that the decision had been finalised on 4 July 2019 and, consequently, that the six-month time-limit had started running as from that date. 18.     It follows that the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected, in accordance with Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 January 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Gilberto Felici   Deputy Registrar   President [1] Protocol No. 15 to the Convention has shortened to four months from the final domestic decision the time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. However, in the present case the six-month period still applies, given that the final domestic decisions were taken prior to 1 February 2022, date of entry into force of the new rule (pursuant to Article   8   § 3 of Protocol No. 15 to the Convention).