CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 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 25 November 2024     FIRST SECTION Application no. 32116/21 Guido AVENIA against Italy lodged on 15 June 2021 communicated on 7 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a police officer ( carabiniere ), was convicted at three instances of aggravated breach of his duties under Article 120 of the Military Criminal Code ( violata consegna da parte di militare di guardia o di servizio ). Pending proceedings before the Court of Cassation, he filed observations submitting, inter alia , that the case against him should have been dismissed as the offence of which he was accused had become time-barred. The Court of Cassation declared his appeal on points of law inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, without making any reference to the issue concerning the statute of limitation. The applicant complains, under Article 6 §1 of the Convention, that the Court of Cassation did not provide any reply to an argument that was decisive for the outcome of his case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s argument concerning the statute of limitation decisive for the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him? If so, having regard to the relevant domestic case-law and in view of the Court of Cassation’s failure to provide a reply to it, was the merit of the criminal charge against the applicant examined fairly, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no.2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §   84, 11 July 2017, and Felloni v. Italy , no.   44221/14, §§   24-31, 6   February 2020)?