CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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. 6305/23 Moulid HASSAN against Italy lodged on 6 February 2023 communicated on 26 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of adequate reasoning by the Court of Cassation when rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation for time spent in “unjust” detention. The applicant and his co-defendant were held in pre-trial detention on suspicion of kidnapping a woman and her child from 17 August 2017 until 30   September 2020, when they were acquitted. Both requested compensation for unjust detention before the competent courts. The applicant’s request was rejected by the Court of Appeal acting as court of first instance, which found that he had acted with “gross negligence” ( colpa grave ) by hosting persons who were irregular on the national territory. He appealed against the decision, claiming that there was no evidence that the woman he had hosted was irregularly in Italy or that he had been aware of that circumstance, that his behaviour did not even appear to be a crime, and that the court’s reasoning would result in punishing acts of mere solidarity. The Court of Cassation dismissed his claim without providing specific answers to the issues he raised. A similar appeal by his co-defendant was quashed by the Court of Cassation and sent back to the lower court on the ground that the reasoning had been insufficient. The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complains that the Court of Cassation’s final decision did not adequately take into consideration his grounds for appeal and did not sufficiently address the arguments put forward in his submissions. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( García   Ruiz v.   Spain [GC], no.   30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I; Perez v.   France [GC], no.   47287/99, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2004-I; and Moreira   Ferreira v.   Portugal (no.   2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11   July 2017)? In particular, was the right to a fair hearing respected as regards the reasoning of the Court of Cassation’s judgment, which, according to the applicant, failed to provide an answer to his grounds for appeal ( Mont Blanc Trading Ltd and Antares Titanium Trading Ltd v. Ukraine , no.   11161/08, §   82, 14 January 2021, and Meli and Swinkels Family Brewers N.V. v.   Albania , nos. 41373/21 and 48801/21, §§   68-69 and 74, 16 July 2024)?