CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 5 July 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 58428/13 Silvio BERLUSCONI against Italy lodged on 10 September 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right not to be punished without law and the right to stand for Parliamentary elections.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the decision of the Senate of the Italian Parliament of 27   November   2013, concluding that the applicant should be stripped of his parliamentary mandate as senator on the basis of Legislative Decree No.   235/2012, violate his right not to be punished without law under Article   7 of the Convention? In particular, did the Senate’s decision constitute a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 7, and if so, was the Legislative Decree No. 235/2012 applied retroactively in the applicant’s case?   2.     Did the decision of the Senate of the Italian Parliament of 27   November   2013, concluding that the applicant should be stripped of his parliamentary mandate as senator on the basis of Legislative Decree No.   235/2012, violate his right to stand for elections under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (S adak and Others v. Turkey (no.2) , nos.   25144/94, 26149/95 to 26254/95, 27100/95 and 27101/95, § 33, ECHR   2002-IV)? In particular: (1) Did the measure pursue a legitimate aim and respect the principle of legitimate expectations (see Lykourezos v.   Greece , no. 33554/03, §§ 53-58, 15 June 2006 and Grosaru v. Romania , no. 78039/01, §§ 54-57, 2 March 2010). Did the parliamentary procedure leading up to the decision to strip the applicant of his mandate as senator provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy before a national authority for the alleged breach of his Convention rights under Article 13 of the Convention?