CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 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 29 April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9870/21 Simone AQUILANTI against Italy lodged on 5 February 2021 communicated on 8 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal (under Article 708 in fine of the Code of Civil Procedure) against the divorce compensation measure ( assegno divorzile ) taken in divorce proceedings by the President of the District Court. The applicant’s appeal was declared inadmissible because the divorce proceedings had, in the meantime, passed from the procedural phase before the President of the District Court phase ( fase presidenziale ) to the full jurisdiction phase. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention on two key grounds: the lack of judicial review and the adoption of a manifestly arbitrary decision based on a matter which had not been submitted to the parties. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have an effective access to Court as required by   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, were the proceedings fair as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taking into account the fact that the Court of Appeal considered the appeal inadmissible?   Did that decision put disproportionate restrictions on the applicant’s rights under Article 6 ( Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, §§ 90-99, 5   April 2018)?   2.     Was the adversarial principle respected in the circumstances of the present case, given that the applicant was allegedly “caught off guard” by the fact that the Court of Appeal based its judgment on a ground raised of its own motion ( Clinique des Acacias and Others v. France , nos. 65399/01 and 3   others, §§ 37-39, § 43, 13 October 2005)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?