CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 }   Communicated on 4 September 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31116/13 Franco SCOPPOLA against Italy lodged on 3 May 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the partial deprivation of the applicant’s legal capacity following his being sentenced to a term of thirty years’ imprisonment. Under Article   32 of the Italian Criminal Code, which concerns ancillary penalties, persons sentenced to life imprisonment or to terms of imprisonment equal to or exceeding five years are automatically subjected to a partial deprivation of their legal capacity for the entire duration of the sentence.   QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1, on account of the partial deprivation of his legal capacity? If so, was it justified under Article 8   §   2 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Did the interference pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8   §   2 of the Convention?   (b)     If so, was it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims? More specifically, could the domestic authorities have carried out a balancing exercise to assess the proportionality of the impugned measure?