CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 février 2025

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 3 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no.   59906/19 Raimondo SILVERI against Italy lodged on 7   November 2019 communicated on 14   February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a zoological guard, was convicted of unlawful exercise of public authority ( usurpazione di pubbliche funzioni ) under section   347 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) and sentenced to one month of imprisonment, for having carried out administrative checks on wild animal hunters between 2011 and 2012 (Court of Cassation’s judgment no.   21508 of 7   May 2019). The applicant complains under Article   7 of the Convention of the unforeseeability of his conviction. He argues, in particular, that domestic case-law at the time of the facts clearly established the possibility for zoological guards to operate those checks on hunters (see Court of Cassation’s judgments nos.   23631/2008 and 28727/2011; see also subsequent case-law, in particular Court of Cassation’s judgment no.   6146/2021). The applicant also complains under Article   13 of the Convention that the Court of Cassation arbitrarily failed to address the merits of an essential argument concerning the functions attributed to zoological guards by Law no.   157/1992, read in conjunction with Royal Decree no.   773/1031, theso-called Consolidated Law on Public Safety ( Testo Unico delle leggi di pubblica sicurezza ).   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In light of the relevant domestic provisions, their interpretation by domestic courts at the time of the facts, and the subsequent developments of domestic case-law, was the applicant’s conviction under section   347 of the Criminal Code foreseeable, as required under Article   7 of the Convention (see   Yüksel Yalçınkaya v.   Türkiye [GC], no.   15669/20, §§   243 et seq., 26   September 2023; see also Navalnyye v.   Russia , no.   101/15, §§   58-69, 17   October 2017; compare Del Río Prada v.   Spain [GC], no.   42750/09, §§   116-18, ECHR   2013)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the Court of Cassation’s judgment no.   21508/2019 sufficiently reasoned with respect to the applicant’s argument concerning the functions attributed to zoological guards by Law no.   157/1992, read in conjunction with Royal Decree no.   773/1031, the so-called Consolidated Law on Public Safety ( Testo Unico delle leggi di pubblica sicurezza ) (see Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal   (no.   2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §   85, 11   July 2017; see also, mutatis   mutandis , Spasov v.   Romania , no.   27122/14, §§   84-99, 6   December 2022)?