CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 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 } Published on 18 December 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 53715/20 Alessandro RICCI against Italy lodged on 30 November 2020 communicated on 27 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By a judgment of 29 November 2016, the La Spezia District Court found the applicant guilty of defamation and threatening. On 30 January 2017 the applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of the La Spezia District Court with the registry of the Florence District Court. He relied on section 582, § 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at the relevant time, that allowed private parties and their lawyers to file appeals with the registry of the District Court of the place where they happened to be ( del luogo in cui si trovano ). By order of 18 March 2019 the Genoa Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible as out of time, taking into account the date on which it received it rather than the date on which the applicant’s lawyer had filed it with the registry of the Florence District Court. Considering the order of the Genoa Court of Appeal in breach of section   582, § 2, of the code of criminal procedure, the applicant challenged it before the Court of Cassation. By a judgment of 4 June 2020, the Court of Cassation rejected his appeal on points of law on the grounds that it was only generically substantiated, and it did not comply with the principle of the autonomy of the appeal on points of law ( autosufficienza del ricorso in cassazione ). According to the Court of Cassation, the appeal on points of law failed to specify the reasons why it had been filed with the registry of the Florence District Court. The applicant complains that the order of the Court of Appeal and the judgment of the Court of Cassation deprived him of access to a court. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant suffered a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right of access to a court) in the determination of a criminal charge against him? In particular: (a)     was the dismissal of the appeal on points of law by the Court of Cassation compatible with the Court’s case-law on “excessive formalism” (see, among many others, Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§   80-82, 87-89 and 96-99, 5 April 2018, and Succi and Others , cited above, 71-95)? (b)     did the decision of the Genoa Court of Appeal to dismiss his appeal as out of time impose a disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to a court (see, mutatis mutandis , Maresti v. Croatia , no. 55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009, and Davran v. Turkey , no. 18342/03, §§ 37 - 47, 3   November 2009)?