CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 } Published on 10 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 20985/24 Nicola POLIFRONI against Italy lodged on 16 July 2024 communicated on 17 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the imposition of an administrative sanction on the applicant for violations he committed as a member of the board of directors of the Banca Popolare delle Province Calabre . The applicant was sanctioned to pay 22,000 euros (EUR) by the Bank of Italy for several violations committed in 2014, including the failure to comply with the minimum regulatory capital requirement provided for banks by Circular no.   263/2006, as amended on 23 April 2013 and further clarified through an official act of 29 May 2013 ( Adeguamento ai nuovi limiti di capitale previsti dalla normativa in materia di autorizzazione all’esercizio dell’attivita’ bancaria ). In particular, the circular as amended provided a 36-month time-limit for banks to comply with the new minimum regulatory capital requirement, which was increased from EUR 6,300,000 to EUR   10,000,000. The applicant’s sanction was upheld by the Rome Court of Appeal and, in last instance, by the Court of Cassation, decision no.   8581/24 of 29   March 2024. The applicant complains under Article 7 of the Convention that he was imposed an administrative sanction in the absence of a legal basis. In particular, he claims that, at the time when the sanction was imposed, the requirement for banks to conform themselves to the new minimum regulatory capital was not yet compulsory. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the sanction imposed by domestic authorities fall within the concept of “penalty” under Article 7 of the Convention ( see Mihalache v.   Romania [GC], no. 54012/10, § 62, 8 July 2019; G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v.   Italy [GC], nos.   1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 210-11, 28 June 2018; and Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy , nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, §§   94 ‑ 101, 4   March 2014)?   2.     If so, did the conduct for which the applicant was sanctioned, namely, the failure to comply with the new minimum regulatory capital of EUR   10,000,000 provided by circular no. 263/2006, as modified on 29   April 2013, constitute an offence under national law at the material time, as envisaged by Article 7 of the Convention ( see Del Río Prada v.   Spain [GC], no.   42750/09, §§ 77-80 and 91-93, ECHR 2013 ;   Kotlyar v.   Russi a , nos.   38825/16 and 2   others, §§ 33-34, 12 July 2022; Mihai Toma v.   Romania , no.   1051/06, §   26, 24   January 2012; and Coëme and Others v.   Belgium , nos.   32492/96 and 4   others, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII)?