CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 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 } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 3 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 7781/09 Rocco CASSONE against Italy lodged on 26 January 2006 communicated on 13 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confiscation of the applicant’s assets as a preventive measure pursuant to Law no. 575 of 31 May 1965. The applicant was convicted of participation in a mafia-type organisation and of extorsion, respectively in 2002 and 2003. In the course of proceedings for the application of preventive measures initiated in 2006, the applicant was declared socially dangerous in accordance with Article 2 ter (3) of Law no. 575 of 1965 ( pericolosità qualificata or “special dangerousness”). On these grounds, the domestic courts ordered the confiscation of his assets, as well as of assets formally belonging to his wife, which they considered to be at the applicant’s disposal. They reasoned that such assets were disproportionate to the applicant’s lawful incomes and that he had failed in demonstrating their lawful origin. The confiscation became final through the decision of the Court of Cassation no. 41213 of 5   November 2008. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing before the District Court and the Court of Appeal.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the exclusion of the public from the courtroom in the applicant’s case, in accordance with Article 4 of Law no. 1423/1956 and Article 2 ter of Law no. 575/1965, as applicable at the relevant time, compatible with Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (see Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy , no. 399/02, §   41, 13   November 2007; Perre and Others v. Italy , no. 1905/05, § 26, 8 July   2008; Bongiorno and Others v. Italy , no. 4514/07, §§ 27-30, 5 January   2010; Leone v. Italy , no. 30506/07, §§ 26-29, 2 February 2010; and Capitani and   Campanella , no. 24920/07, § 26-29, 17 May 2011)?