CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35310/23 Massimo NICCHINIELLO against Italy lodged on 14 September 2023 communicated on 26 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s unsuccessful claim for compensation for the time he spent in pre-trial detention. The applicant, an officer of the Revenue Police, was arrested on 16 June 2017 and placed in pre-trial detention. Upon appeal, the competent court annulled the pre-trial detention order, finding that there was no serious evidence of guilt. The applicant was released on 4 July 2017. In 2020, after the case against him was dismissed, the applicant lodged a claim for compensation, clarifying that the pre-trial detention order had been annulled for lack of sufficient evidence of guilt and that the case against him had been dismissed. He enclosed an excerpt of the decision quashing his detention. Following the rejection of his claim by the first-instance court, the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation, which also rejected his claim. It found that he had only claimed compensation for his “unjust” detention (based on the dismissal of the case against him), to which he was not entitled, and that his claim did not include a request for compensation for his “unlawful” detention. In particular, the court stressed that the applicant, in his initial submissions, had cited some case-law as regards unjust detention; on this basis, it concluded that he had not intended to also apply for compensation for unlawful detention. The applicant, relying on Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, complains of excessive formalism in the domestic courts’ interpretation and application of the law implementing the right to compensation for wrongful detention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention for his detention, which had been found to be unlawful by the domestic courts? In particular, did the domestic courts examining his claim interpret and apply domestic law in the spirit of Article 5 of the Convention (see N.C. v.   Italy [GC], no.   24952/94, § 52, ECHR 2002-X; Houtman et Meeus v.   Belgium , no.   22945/07, § 46, 17 March 2009; Danev v. Bulgaria , no.   9411/05, § 35, 2 September 2010; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no.   36760/06, §   182, ECHR 2012; and Nsingi v. Greece , no. 27985/19, § 55, 15 October 2024)?