CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 4 March 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2929/13 Graziella ZANOTTI against Italy lodged on 5 December 2012 communicated on 16 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the delay on the part of the authorities to return to the applicant, after the adoption of a decision not to prosecute, the assets that had been seized in the context of a criminal investigation. In particular, on 24 February 2012 several assets owned by the applicant – including movable and immovable properties, the shares of her company, and her bank accounts – were seized by the preliminary investigation judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari , “GIP”) of the Milano District Court, in the context of a criminal investigation concerning frauds, money laundering and usury. On 15   February   2013 the GIP adopted a decision not to prosecute on the ground that the mental element of the offence had not been made out ( perché il fatto non costituisce reato ), and ordered the immediate restitution of the seized assets to the applicant. The applicant complains, in substance under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the fact that the seized assets were returned to her only in   May   2014, fifteen months after the restitution order.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, guaranteed by Article   1   of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention?   In particular, was there a legitimate reason for retaining the applicant’s assets for fifteen months after the decision not to prosecute and the order to immediately return her the seized assets (see Akpaz Société à responsabilité limitée v. Turkey , no.   6800/09, §   99, 18   January   2022, Patrikova v.   Bulgaria , no.   71835/01, §   98, 4   March   2010, and, mutatis mutandis , Raimondo v.   Italy , no.   12954/87, §   36, 22   February   2004)? If so, was the measure proportionate to aim pursued?