CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 25   March 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   37185/18 Cornelio Marco MEREGHETTI against Italy lodged on 2   August 2018 communicated on 5   March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of the sanctioning proceedings before the Bank of Italy and the absence of public hearing in the proceedings for judicial review. The applicant was member of the board of directors and managing director of Askar Investors SGR S.p.A. On 22   July 2014, the Bank of Italy imposed on him a sanction of 41,000   euros by decision no.   740800/2014. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was rejected by the Brescia Court of Appeal (decision of 18   February 2015) and by the Court of Cassation (judgment no.   5917/18 of 12   March 2018). The applicant complains under Article   6 of the Convention (criminal head) of the fairness of the proceedings before the Bank of Italy and that the Brescia Court of Appeal did not remedy those defects on appeal as it failed to hold a public hearing.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In light of the “Engel criteria” (see Ezeh and Connors v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   39665/98 and 40086/98, §§   82-3, ECHR 2003-X) is Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? 2.     Assuming that Article   6 of the Convention is applicable to the present case, can the Bank of Italy be considered an “independent and impartial tribunal” and was the procedure before it fair under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (compare Grande Stevens and Others v.   Italy , nos.   18640/10 and   4 others, §§   116-23 and 132-7, 4   March 2014) 3.     In the negative, did the judicial review by the Brescia Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation remedied any defect there might have been in proceedings before the Bank of Italy? In particular, was the exclusion of the public from the courtroom in the applicant’s case, in accordance with Article   195 §7 of Legislative Decree no.   58 of 1993, as applicable at the relevant time, compatible with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention ( Grande   Stevens and Others , cited above,   §§   148-55)?