CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 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 } Published on 15 April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 23005/23 David ODDONE against San Marino lodged on 25 May 2023 communicated on 26 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the length of proceedings involving the applicant who was a professional journalist registered with the Journalistic Council ( Consiglio Direttivo della Consulta per l’informazione ) and listed in the Register of Journalists of San Marino (‘the Register’). Following a final criminal appeal judgment 10 October 2016 finding the applicant guilty of fraud, the applicant was sentenced to a jail term and a suspended temporary disqualification from public office and political rights. Given the findings of guilt and consequent punishment, in particular, the disqualification, the Journalistic Council was called on to determine whether the applicant should be suspended from the Register in line with Article   5   (19) of Law no. 211/2014. After a first decision not to suspend him from the Register (as his disqualification had been suspended), upon a third-party complaint, by a decision of 17 March 2017 the Journalistic Council suspended the applicant from the Register for one year and five months. The applicant challenged that decision before the administrative courts, requesting inter alia that his suspension be revoked in the meantime. On 24   May 2017, his precautionary request was rejected but his challenge was eventually upheld by a decision of 27 July 2020 which annulled the suspension and ordered both parties to pay part of the costs. The defendants appealed and proceedings were on the date of the introduction of the application still pending. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, was his right to continue exercising his profession at stake so as to bring the civil limb of Article 6 §   1 into play (see Di Giovanni v. Italy , no. 51160/06, § 36, 9 July 2013; Biagioli v.   San Marino (dec.), no. 64735/14, 13 September 2016; and Marušić v.   Croatia (dec.), no.   79821/12, 23 May 2017)?   2.     If so, was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (compare Frydlender v. France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Tierce v. San Marino , no.   69700/01, § 30, ECHR 2003 ‑ VII)?