CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2024

.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 26 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37642/23 Nikolas GARAGOUNIS against Italy lodged on 5 October 2023 communicated on 9 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the police caution ( ammonimento ) imposed on the applicant in stalking-prevention proceedings by the head of the local police authority ( questore ). The measure was eventually upheld by the Council of State’s judgment no.   2496 of 9   March   2023. The applicant complains under Articles   6 and   13 of the Convention that he was not allowed to participate in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his interests, and that the reasons adduced by the domestic authorities to justify the impugned measure were not relevant and sufficient. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for private life, guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention? In particular:   (i)     having regard to the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the applicant and the time elapsed between the lodging of the complaint against him and the notification of the measure by the questore , was the applicant allowed to participate in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his interests (see Giuliano   Germano v.   Italy , no.   10794/12, §§   125-37, 22   June   2023)?   (ii)     did the domestic authorities give relevant and sufficient reasons for the imposition of the contested measure (ibid.,   §§   132-37)?