CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 7 October 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50055/21 Salvatore SCADUTO and Pietro SCADUTO against Italy and two other applications (see list appended) communicated on 18 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE During criminal proceedings against the applicants the public prosecutor obtained traffic and location data relating to them from certain communications service providers. In the judgments convicting the applicants, domestic courts relied on some of that data. Invoking Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the public prosecutor’s access to their data and its use in the proceedings against them. They claim in particular that the relevant legal provisions in force at the time did not ensure sufficient protection against arbitrary and indiscriminate access to data, insofar as they allowed the public prosecutor to authorise that access without prior judicial review. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Given that the applicants argue that they did not complain before the criminal courts about the lack of prior judicial review relating to access to their telecommunication data since the power of the public prosecutor to authorise that access emanated directly from legislation, as interpreted by the consolidated case-law of domestic courts (they rely in particular on the judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 281 of 1998 and on the judgment of the Plenary Court of Cassation of 23 February 2000), did they have at their disposal an effective remedy by which compliance of the alleged interference with Article 8 could be determined (see Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no.   46470/11, § 87, ECHR 2015)?   In this context, the parties are invited to: ‑   comment on the particular features of indirect application by individuals to the Constitutional Court to seek constitutional review of legislation (see   Parrillo , cited above, §§ 101 and 104; compare and contrast Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no.   21881/20, §§ 145, 151 and 152, 27 November 2023; Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010; Fizgejer v. Estonia [dec.],   43480/17, §§   68-77, 2 June 2020; and Larionovs and Tess v. Latvia [dec.], nos.   45520/04 and 19363/05, §§ 161 and 162, 25 November 2014); ‑   specify whether the requirements set out in the case-law of the Constitutional Court under which only the ordinary courts would be bound to comply with the Court’s case-law were fulfilled in the present case ( Parrillo , cited above, §§ 97 and 100); ‑   justify their answer with reference to the domestic courts’ case-law ( Parrillo , cited above, §§ 90 and 104).   2.     Having regard to the fact that access to the applicants’ traffic and location data was authorised by decree of the public prosecutor, was the aforementioned access in compliance with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention, including the requirement of lawfulness (see Ben Faiza v.   France , no. 31446/12, § 73, 8 February 2018; Ekimdzhiev and Others v.   Bulgaria , no. 70078/12, §§ 400-06, 11 January 2022; and Škoberne v.   Slovenia , no. 19920/20, § 143, 15 February 2024; compare also with Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2   others, §§ 519, 521 and 522, 25 May 2021)? Furthermore, did the use of such data in the proceedings against the applicants respect their right to private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention?   In answering to the questions under 2), the parties are invited to comment on relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including judgments of 2 March 2021, Prokuratuur (Conditions of access to data relating to electronic communications) , C‑746/18, EU:C:2021:152; 16   December 2021, Spetsializirana prokuratura (Traffic and location data) , C‑724/19, EU:C:2021:1020; 17 November 2022, Spetsializirana prokuratura (Retention of traffic and location data) , C-350/21, EU:C:2022:896; and 30   April 2024, Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Bolzano , C-178/22, EU:C:2024:371; and on legislative developments following the facts of the case, in particular section 1 of the Law Decree No. 132 of 30   September 2021, converted with amendments into Law No.   178 of   23   November 2021.       APPENDIX List of applications:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by 1. 50055/21 Scaduto v.   Italy 29/09/2021 Salvatore SCADUTO 1962 Sulmona Pietro SCADUTO 1964 San Gimignano Giuseppe FARINA 2. 52437/21 De Rosa v.   Italy 16/10/2021 Marco DE ROSA 1969 Rome Silvia ASTARITA 3. 6380/22 Libranti and Lombardo v.   Italy 19/01/2022 Lucido Giuseppe LIBRANTI 1973 Saluzzo Giuseppe LOMBARDO 1977 Saluzzo Silvia ASTARITA