CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 27 November 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 81658/17 Alessandro NOCERINO against Italy and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 6 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the confiscation of the applicants’ assets, which were considered to be proceeds of crime, on the basis of Article 12 sexies of Law Decree no. 306/1992, introduced on 20 June 1994 by Law Decree no.   399/1994 (“extended confiscation”; confisca allargata ). As regards application no. 81658/17 Nocerino v. Italy , the applicant was convicted, under Article 416 bis of the Criminal Code, for being a member of a mafia-type criminal organisation from 1984 until 1994. Having established that the applicant’s assets were disproportionate to his declared income and that he was unable to demonstrate their lawful origin, the national courts ordered their confiscation. The confiscation became final with the judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 25732 of 23 May 2017. As regards applications nos. 17886/20 Gulizia v. Italy and 32708/20 Bruno v.   Italy , I.G. (the brother and husband of the applicants respectively) was convicted twice – by judgments issued on 14 July 1993 and 17 May 1994 – for being a member of a criminal organisation dealing with drug trafficking, under Article 74 of Presidential Decree no. 309/1990. The national courts established that certain assets formally owned by the applicants belonged, in reality, to I.G. and were disproportionate to the family’s declared income. As I.G. and the applicants were unable to demonstrate the lawful origin of such assets, the national courts ordered the confiscation thereof. The confiscations became final with judgments no. 48525 of 28 November 2019 and no.   14846 of 13   May 2020 respectively. As regards application no. 6411/21 Esposito and Cosimo v. Italy , the applicants were convicted, under Articles 73 and 74 of Presidential Decree no.   309/1990, for drug-related crimes committed in 2008. Having established that the construction of a building, dating back to 1992 and erected on land purchased by the first applicant’s parents in 1991, was disproportionate to the applicants’ declared income, and that they were unable to demonstrate its lawful origin, the national courts ordered the confiscation of the building. The confiscation became final with the judgment of the Court of Cassation no.   12928 of 24 April 2020. In applications nos. 81658/17 Nocerino v. Italy , 17886/20 Gulizia v.   Italy and 32708/20 Bruno v. Italy the applicants complain, under Article 7 of the Convention, of the retroactive application of Article 12 sexies of Law Decree   306/1992. In applications nos. 81658/17 Nocerino v. Italy and 6411/21 Esposito and   Cosimo v.   Italy , the applicants complain of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, for (i) lack of a foreseeable legal basis in light of the retroactive application of Article 12 sexies and (ii) the disproportionate character of the confiscation, in light of the reversed burden of proof as to the lawful origin of the confiscated assets and (iii) an incorrect assessment of evidence, which showed that the assets had been acquired lawfully or, in any case, long before the commission of the crimes. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards applications nos. 81658/17 Nocerino v. Italy , 17886/20 Gulizia v. Italy and 32708/20 Bruno v. Italy , can the confiscation of the alleged proceeds of crime, as prescribed by Article 12 sexies of Law Decree no.   306/1992, be considered a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 7   §   1 of the Convention (see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 50705/11 and   6   others, §§ 302-306, 13 July 2021, Ulemek v. Serbia (dec.) , no.   41680/13, §§   47-57, 2 February 2021 and Welch v. the United Kingdom , 9   February 1995, §§ 28-35, Series A no. 307-A)?   2.     If so, was a heavier penalty imposed on the applicants than the one which was applicable at the time of the commission of the offences, as proscribed by Article   7 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     As regards applications nos. 81658/17 Nocerino v. Italy and 6411/21 Esposito and Cosimo v. Italy , was the confiscation of the applicants’ assets in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, was the application of Article 12 sexies of Law Decree no.   306/1992 sufficiently foreseeable (see Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia , no.   36862/05, § 99, 12 May 2015 and Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria , no.   12655/09, §   46, 3 March 2015)?   4.     If so, was the confiscation of the applicants’ assets proportionate to the aim pursued, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, the parties are invited to address the following points: (i)     whether the domestic authorities showed that the confiscated assets could have been the proceeds of crimes in a reasoned manner, on the basis of an objective assessment of facts and evidence and without relying on a mere suspicion, also in light of the date of their acquisition (see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, § 215, 13 July 2021); (ii)     whether the reversal of the burden of proving the lawful origin of assets acquired many years earlier imposed an excessive burden on the applicants (see Todorov , cited above, § 202 and, mutatis mutandis , Dimitrovi v.   Bulgaria , no. 12655/09, § 46, 3 March 2015); (iii)     whether the applicants were afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting their arguments before the domestic courts and whether the latter duly examined the evidence submitted by the applicants ( Telbis and Viziteu v.   Romania , no. 47911/15, §§ 78, 26 June 2018).   APPENDIX List of applications:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 81658/17 Nocerino v. Italy 22/11/2017 Alessandro NOCERINO 02/01/1947 Naples Italian Giovanni ROMANO 2. 17886/20 Gulizia v. Italy 15/04/2020 Carmela GULIZIA 12/12/1955 Cinisello Balsamo Italian Nicola CAMPANA 3. 32708/20 Bruno v. Italy 23/07/2020 Silvana BRUNO 23/05/1964 Milan Italian Nicola CAMPANA 4. 6411/21 Esposito and Cosimo v. Italy 19/01/2021 Sergio Vito ESPOSITO 15/06/1957 Collepasso Italian Agata COSIMO 25/06/1966 Collepasso Italian Antonella MASCIA