CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s579A502D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s26138258 { margin-top:50pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 42235/23 and 14511/25 Ajhan VEAPI against Italy and Fabrizio Antonino PROVENZANO against Italy lodged on 24 November 2023 and 23 April 2025 respectively communicated on 26 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the lack of a public hearing before the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation in proceedings for compensation for “unjust” detention under Articles 127, 314 § 1, 315 and 646 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants had been kept in pre-trial detention while criminal proceedings were pending against them. They were eventually acquitted and released from detention. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of a public hearing.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the course of the domestic proceedings, was the right to have a public hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention respected ( Hermi v.   Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 77 et seq. , ECHR 2006-XII; Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy , no. 399/02, 13 November 2007; and Lorenzetti v.   Italy , no.   32075/09, 10 April 2012)?   2.     Did the applicants have an effective and accessible remedy, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to complain about the lack of a public hearing? In particular, and in the light of relevant national case ‑ law (see Plenary Court of Cassation, no. 41694/2012; Constitutional Court, no.   214/2013; Plenary Court of Cassation, no. 51779/2013; and Court of Cassation, no. 18288/2023) did the relevant judicial practice afford the applicants with the possibility of requesting and obtaining a public hearing? If so, the parties are invited to provide a copy of the relevant domestic decisions.