CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1EDC9B7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s93B87EE3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 15   July 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   43204/12 Antonio D’ORIANO against Italy and 41 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28   June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the confiscation of the applicants’ assets, ordered by the domestic courts pursuant to Article   24 of Legislative Decree no.   159 of 6   September 2011 ( Codice delle leggi antimafia e delle misure di prevenzione, “Decree no.   159/2011”). Some of them also concern the imposition on the applicants of the measure of special police supervision, pursuant to Article   6 of the same decree (see the appended table). The applicants are either individuals who have been declared socially dangerous in accordance with Article   1   §   1   (a) and/or (b) of Decree   no.   159/2011, reproducing the ones enshrined in Article   1   §   1   (1) and (2) of Law no.   1423 of 27   December 1956 ( pericolosità generica or “ordinary dangerousness”), or family members or next-of-kin of individuals who have been declared socially dangerous pursuant to the same provision, whose properties were confiscated. As for the former, the domestic courts considered that their assets were disproportionate to their lawful income and that the applicants had failed to demonstrate their lawful origin. As for the latter, the domestic courts considered that the relevant assets were formally owned by the applicants but, in reality, belonged to their socially dangerous relatives ( intestazione fittizia or “fictitious ownership”) or, in any event, were under their effective control and at their disposal. The courts further observed that such assets were disproportionate to their and their relatives’ lawful incomes and that they had failed to demonstrate their lawful origin. Relying on the Court’s judgment in the case of De Tommaso   v. Italy ([GC], no.   43395/09, 23   February 2017), all applicants’ main complaint, raised under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 as well as different other provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, concerns the alleged lack of clarity and foreseeability of the legal basis of the contested measures with regard to the identification of the individuals to whom confiscation and special police supervision could be imposed. The complaints raised by each applicant, and the corresponding questions which the parties are requested to answer, are indicated in the appended table. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions in accordance with the requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular: (a)   was the interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by the law, as required by Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? In this respect, were provisions (a) and/or (b) of Article   1   §   1 of Decree no.   159/2011 sufficiently precise and clear, foreseeable in their application and consequences, and compatible with the rule of law, in respect of the individuals to whom confiscation of assets as a preventive measure is applicable (see De   Tommaso   v.   Italy [GC], no.   43395/09,   §   126, 23   February 2017)? (b)   was the interference proportionate to the aim pursued? In answering the question, the parties are requested to refer, inter alia, to the following points: (i)   whether the nature and severity of the crimes, on which the declaration of social dangerousness has been based, justified the presumption that the applicants’ assets were proceeds of unlawful activities (compare Bongiorno   and Others v.   Italy , no.   4514/07,   §   45, 5   January 2010; Gogitidze and Others v.   Georgia , no.   36862/05, §   107, 12   May 2015; Telbis   and Viziteu v.   Romania , no.   47911/15, §§   74 and 77, 26   June 2018; and Balsamo v.   San   Marino , nos.   20319/17   and 21414/17, §   91, 8   October   2019); (ii)   whether the domestic authorities made a sufficiently individualised assessment of proportionality between the applicants’ assets and their lawful income, in order to identify which pieces of property to confiscate (see, mutatis   mutandis , Rummi v.   Estonia , no.   63362/09, §   108, 15   January 2015, and Todorov and Others v.   Bulgaria , nos.   50705/11 and 6 others, §   221, 13   July   2021; a   contrario , Phillips v.   the United Kingdom , no.   41087/98, §   53, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII; Silickienė v.   Lithuania , no.   20496/02, §   68, 10   April   2012; and Gogitidze and Others , cited above, §§   105-07); (iii)   as regards the cases concerning the intestazione fittizia , whether the domestic authorities showed in a reasoned manner, on the basis of an objective assessment of the factual evidence, that the confiscated assets belonged to the individual declared socially dangerous (see Gogitidze and Others , cited above, §   122, and Balsamo , cited above, §91); (iv)   whether the applicants were afforded a reasonable opportunity to put their argument before the domestic courts and whether the latter duly examined the evidence submitted by the applicants ( Telbis and Viziteu , cited above, §   78).   2.     Was the interference with the applicants’ right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence in accordance with the requirements of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention? In this regard: (a)   Was the interference in accordance with the law? In particular: (i)   were the provisions (a) and/or (b) of Article   1 §   1 of Decree no.   159/2011 sufficiently precise and clear, foreseeable in their application and consequences, and compatible with the rule of law, in respect of the individuals to whom special supervision as a preventive measure is applicable (see De   Tommaso , cited above, §   126)? (ii)   were the obligations imposed on account of the measure sufficiently clear and determined (ibid., §§   119-22)? (b)   Did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests and the applicants’ rights?   3.     Taking into account the characterisation of the contested measure under domestic law and case-law (compare, inter alia , Court of Cassation, judgments no.   18   of 3   July 1996, no.   57 of 8   January 2006, no.   39204 of 17   May 2013, and no.   4880 of 2   February 2015; contra judgment no.   14044 of 25   March   2013; see also, inter alia , Constitutional Court, judgments no.   21 of 9   February 2012, and no.   24 of 27   February 2019), its nature and purpose, the procedures involved in its imposition and implementation, and its severity, did the confiscation applied to the applicants pursuant to Article   24 of Decree no.   159/2011 amount to a “penalty” within the meaning of Article   7   §   1 of the Convention (compare Arcuri v.   Italy (dec.), no.   52024/99, §   2, ECHR 2001-VII; Capitani and Campanella v.   Italy , no.   24920/07, §   37, 17 May 2011; Gogitidze and Others , cited above, § 121; and, mutatis mutandis , Balsamo , cited above, §   58 et seq., and contrast with G.I.E.M.   S.R.L. and Others v.   Italy [GC], nos.   1828/06 and 2 others, §§   214 et seq., 28   June 2018)? If so, has there been a violation of Article   7 of the Convention, on account of: (a)   the alleged lack of clarity and foreseeability of the relevant domestic provisions? (b)   the fact that the applicants have not been convicted of any criminal offence? (c)   the retrospective application of the relevant domestic provisions?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, as guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the house which constituted their domicile was confiscated? If so: (a)   was the measure in accordance with the law, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article   8? In particular, were the provisions (a) and/or (b) of Article   1   §   1 of Decree no.   159/2011 sufficiently precise and clear, foreseeable in their application and consequences, and compatible with the rule of law, in respect of the individuals to whom confiscation of assets as a preventive measure is applicable (see De Tommaso , cited above §   126)? (b)   was the interference necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aim pursued (see Aboufadda v.   France (dec.), no.   28457/10, §   43, 4   November 2014, and, mutatis   mutandis , Ivanova and Cherkezov v.   Bulgaria , no.   46577/15, §§   53-56, 21   April 2016)?   5.     Provided that the measure can be considered criminal in nature (see question no. 3), has there been a violation of the ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention?   6.     Did the decisions of the domestic courts in the preventive proceedings reflect the opinion that the applicants were guilty, notwithstanding the absence of a formal finding of guilt, given that the criminal proceedings were still pending? If so, has there been a violation of the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention (see Allen v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no.   25424/09, CEDH 2013, Nealon and Hallam v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   32483/19 and 35049/19, §§   150-169, 11   June 2024, and, mutatis mutandis , Geerings v.   the Netherlands , no.   30810/03, §   47, 1   March 2007)?   7.     Was the applicants’ case decided by an impartial tribunal, as required by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? APPENDIX Applications concerned:   No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Relevant domestic provision Position in the domestic proceedings Convention Articles (as invoked by the applicants) Complaints and questions to the parties Final domestic decision 1. 43204/12 D’Oriano v. Italy 29/06/2012 Antonio D’ORIANO 1967 Brindisi Italian Federico MASSA Lecce Article 1 § 1 (1) and (2) of Law no. 1423/1956 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no. 92 of 18 January 2012 2. 34428/17 Sussetto v. Italy 03/05/2017 Giuseppina SUSSETTO 1944 Turin Italian Mauro RONCO Turin Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - defence made impossible by the passage of time - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv) Court of Cassation, judgment no. 3842 of 25 January 2017 3. 81413/17 Mazzeo v. Italy 24/11/2017 Maria MAZZEO 1979 Cuggiono (MI) Italian Massimo BIFFA Rome Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Third party - daughter of D.M., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   26542 of 26   May 2017 4. 82104/17 Mazzeo v. Italy 24/11/2017 Domenico MAZZEO 1954 MARCALLO CON CASONE Italian Federico RIBOLDI Milan Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i) Article 7 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 3, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   26542 of 26   May 2017 5. 82105/17 Mazzeo v. Italy 24/11/2017 Angelo MAZZEO 1986 Cuggiono Italian Pier Francesco POLI Milan Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Third party - Son of D.M., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii), (iii) and (iv) Article 7 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 3, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   26542 of 26   May 2017 6. 2196/18 Balducci v. Italy 03/01/2018 Angelo BALDUCCI 1948 Rome Italian Franco Carlo COPPI Rome Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i), (ii) and (iv) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i) Article 7 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 3, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no. 4521 of 4 July 2017 7. 22166/18 Vissicchio v. Italy 03/05/2018 Mario VISSICCHIO 1970 Agropoli Italian Alfredo VISSICCHIO 1968 Agropoli Italian Antonio PAGLIANO Naples Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of proportionality of the measure of confiscation - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied and lack of clarity of the obligations imposed - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i) and (ii) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of proportionality of the measure of special police supervision - question no. 2, lett. (b) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   50437 of 6   November 2017 8. 44036/18 Oliveri v. Italy 13/09/2018 Matteo Giuseppe OLIVERI 1981 Giulianova Italian Valerio VIANELLO ACCORRETTI Rome Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Third party - son of O.V., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (iii) and (iv) Article 7 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 3 (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   11846 of 15   March 2018 9. 4986/19 Pantone v. Italy 10/01/2019 Vincenza PANTONE 1954 Andria Italian Fabrizio Michele DI TERLIZZI Trani   Third party - former partner of D.Q., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (iii) and (iv) Article 7 of the Convention - imposition of a penalty on a third party - question no. 3, lett. (b) Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   31307 of 10   July 2018 10. 5051/19 Quacquarelli v. Italy 09/01/2019 Domenico QUACQUARELLI 1954 Bisceglie Italian Domenico DI TERLIZZI Trani Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i) Article 7 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 3, lett. (a) Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a) Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b) Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - breach of the ne bis in idem principle - question no. 5 Court of Cassation, judgment no.   31307 of 10   July 2018 11. 17346/19 Ascione v. Italy 22/03/2019 Giuliano ASCIONE 1954 Formia Italian Francesco BERTOROTTA Palerme Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i), (ii) and (iv) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   40913 of 24   September 2018 12. 21042/19 Raggi v. Italy 08/04/2019 Silvano RAGGI 1948 Fabriano Italian Alessandro ROCCO Ancona Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a)   Article 6 § 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i), (ii) and (iv) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   45008 of 8   October 2018 13. 31549/19 Magnisi v. Italy 04/06/2019 Massimo MAGNISI 1964 Milazzo Italian Armando VENETO Palmi Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Intervened in the domestic proceedings as heir of A.M., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   11593 of 19   December 2019 14. 37031/19 Lafleur v. Italy 02/07/2019 Maria LAFLEUR 1982 Milan Italian Danilo BUONGIORNO Milan Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Third party - daughter of P.L., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no. 2470 of 18 January 2019 15. 45070/19 Mongardini v. Italy 19/08/2019 Marco MONGARDINI 1966 Milan Italian Riziero ANGELETTI Rieti Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Court of Cassation, judgment no. 8651   of 27   February 2019 16. 58290/19 Baglio v. Italy 30/10/2019 Maria BAGLIO 1971 Sassuolo Italian Giuseppe PAVAN Padoue Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Third party - daughter of R.A.B., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   18312 of 2   May   2019 17. 61236/19 Baglio v. Italy 30/10/2019 Manuela BAGLIO 1976 Fiorano Modesene Italian Giuseppe PAVAN Padoue Daughter of Mr. R.A. Baglio, declared socially dangerous pursuant to Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree 159/2011 Third party - daughter of R.A.B., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - breach of the ne bis in idem principle - question no. 5 Court of Cassation, judgment no.   18312 of 2   May   2019 18. 2177/20 De Pierro v. Italy 05/12/2019 Giovanni DE PIERRO 1950 Quarteira Loule Italian Antonella MASCIA Vérone Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 6 § 2 of the Convention - presumption of innocence - question no. 6 Court of Cassation, judgment no.   31449 of 17   July 2019 19. 6088/20 Castiglione v. Italy 17/01/2020 Martino CASTIGLIONE 1956 Strongoli Italian Federico DI SALVO Florence Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   31585 of 17   July 2019 20. 6110/20 Paonessa v. Italy 17/01/2020 Lucia PAONESSA 1958 Rome Italian Antonella MASCIA Vérone Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Third party - shareholder of companies whose shares have been considered actually owned by G.D.P., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   31549 of 17   July 2019 21. 16001/20 Morini v. Italy 11/03/2020 Gian Luca MORINI 1961 Fosdinovo Italian Bruno NASCIMBENE Milan Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 7 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 3, lett. (a) Article 6 § 2 of the Convention - presumption of innocence - question no. 6 Court of Cassation, judgment no.   37905 of 12   September 2019 22. 27000/20 Pirozzi v. Italy 25/06/2020 Luigi PIROZZI Ciampino Italian Diego GALASSI Rome Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   25375 of 27   December 2019 23. 48585/20 Levacovich v. Italy 26/10/2020 Vittorio LEVACOVICH 1963 Buggiano Italian Baldassare LAURIA Alcamo Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   13037 of 27   April 2020 24. 48597/20 Levacovich v. Italy 26/10/2020 Martin LEVACOVICH 1988 Buggiano Italian Baldassare LAURIA Alcamo Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   13037 of 27   April 2020 25. 48602/20 Levacovich v. Italy 26/10/2020 Debora LEVACOVICH 1982 Buggiano Italian Baldassare LAURIA Alcamo Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   13037 of 27   April 2020 26. 48606/20 Odorovich v. Italy 26/10/2020 Emanuela ODOROVICH 1965 Buggiano Italian Baldassare LAURIA Alcamo Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   13037 of 27   April 2020 27. 51017/20 Afilani v. Italy 06/11/2020 Francesco AFILANI 1974 Nettuno Italian Pasquale CARDILLO CUPO Formia Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   14845 of 13   May 2020 28. 15858/21 Morelli v. Italy 08/03/2021 Filippa MORELLI 1964 Avezzano Italian Cosimo CASTRIGNANÒ Lecce Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   25416 of 8   September 2020 29. 15884/21 Di Silvio v. Italy 08/03/2021 Rosaria DI SILVIO 1979 Avezzano Italian Cosimo CASTRIGNANÒ Lecce Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   25416 of 8   September 2020 30. 15908/21 Di Silvio v. Italy 08/03/2021 Ferdinando DI SILVIO 1957 Avezzano Italian Cosimo CASTRIGNANÒ Lecce Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (i) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   25416 of 8   September 2020 31. 30464/21 Melloni v. Italy 28/05/2021 Domenico MELLONI 1968 Genzano di Roma Italian Giulia BONGIORNO Rome Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of clarity of the content of the obligations imposed - question no. 2, lett. (a) (ii) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   34325 of 2   December 2020 32. 30535/21 Anderlucci v. Italy 28/05/2021 Massimiliano ANDERLUCCI 1976 Genzano di Roma Italian Giulia BONGIORNO Rome Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of clarity of the content of the obligations imposed - question no. 2, lett. (a) (ii) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   34325 of 2   December 2020 33. 30615/21 Fazzari v. Italy 05/06/2021 Simone FAZZARI 1978 Rome Italian Gianluca MACCHIONI Rome Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   37147 of 22   December 2020 34. 31761/21 Avarello v. Italy 08/06/2021 Maria Stella AVARELLO 1940 Giubiasco Italian Cesare GALLONI Rome Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Third party - wife of S.F., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 7 of the Convention - retrospective application of Law no. 125/2008 - question no. 3, lett. (c) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   37147 of 22   December 2020 35. 32225/21 Marini and Colelli v. Italy 21/06/2021 Alessia MARINI 1966 Sacrofano Italian Giacometta COLELLI 1942 Rome Italian Antonella MASCIA Vérone Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 First applicant - third party - partner of M.C., declared socially dangerous in the domestic proceedings Second applicant - third party - mother of the first applicant Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) As regards the first applicant, Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a) As regards the first applicant, Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   37160 of 22   December 2020 36. 32256/21 Larosa and Garruzzo v. Italy 07/06/2021 Salvatore LAROSA 1954 Fondi Italian Rosaria GARRUZZO 1960 Fondi Italian Antonella MASCIA Vérone Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 First applicant - declared socially dangerous Second applicant - third party - wife of the first applicant Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a) Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b) Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - lack of impartiality - question no. 7 Court of Cassation, judgment no.   35803 of 14   December 2020 37. 33537/21 Buzzi v. Italy 22/06/2021 Salvatore BUZZI 1955 Rome Italian   Antonella MASCIA Vérone Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a) Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   37160 of 22   December 2020 38. 14266/22 Di Gennaro and Liardo v. Italy 10/03/2022 Crocifisso DI GENNARO 1981 Gela Italian   Crocifissa LIARDO 1982 Gela Italian Anton Giulio LANA Rome Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 First applicant – declared socially dangerous   Second applicant – wife of the first applicant Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a)   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)   Article 7 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 3, lett. (a)   Article 8 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 4, lett. (a) Article 8 of the Convention - lack of proportionality of the confiscation of the family home - question no. 4, lett. (b)     39. 39136/22 Fuda and Others v. Italy 04/08/2022 Domenico FUDA 1971 Gioiosa Ionica Italian   Valeria SAINATO 1979 Gioiosa Ionica Italian   Debora FUDA 2005 Gioiosa Ionica Italian   Giuseppe FUDA 2013 Gioiosa Ionica Italian   Teresa FUDA 2002 Gioiosa Ionica Italian   Roberta FUDA 2004 Gioiosa Ionica Italian   Francesca FUDA 1993 Gioiosa Ionica Italian Antonella MASCIA Vérone Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 First applicant - declared socially dangerous   Second applicant – wife of the first applicant   Third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants – children of the first and second applicants   Seventh applicant – daughter of the first applicant Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   14778 of 15   April 2022 40. 37157/22 Perciballi v. Italy 22/07/2022 Massimiliano PERCIBALLI 1968 Albano Laziale Italian Generoso PETRILLO Rome Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a) Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 2, lett. (a) (i) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   13910 of 11   April 2022 41. 51025/22 Piccirillo v. Italy 21/10/2022   Pasquale PICCIRILLO 1964 Caserta Italian Giuseppe PAVAN Padova Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a)   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b)   Court of Cassation, judgment no.   24317 of 23   June 2022 42. 31972/23 Ruffini v. Italy 11/08/2023 Aldo RUFFINI Reggio Emilia Italian Dario BOLOGNESI Milan Article 1 § 1 (b) of Decree no. 159/2011 Declared socially dangerous Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - lack of foreseeability of the legal basis with regard to individuals to whom preventive measures can be applied - question no. 1, lett. (a)   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inversion of the burden of proof and rights of defence - question no. 1, lett. (b) (ii) and (iv) Court of Cassation, judgment no.   15704 of 13   April 2023