CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } Published on 13 October 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 20289/24 Claudio TOMASSONI against Italy lodged on 5 July 2024 communicated on 22 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confiscation of the applicant’s assets, which were considered to be direct proceeds of crime ( confisca diretta ), despite the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings. The applicant was prosecuted and convicted at first instance for the crime of usury; on appeal, the proceedings were discontinued as statute-barred. On 20 July 2022 the Rome Court of Appeal, acting as enforcement judge, ordered the confiscation of the sum of 15,400 euros, which was considered to be the profit of the crime of usury, pursuant to Article 644 of the Italian Criminal Code. The confiscation was subsequently upheld by the same Court of Appeal and ultimately by the Court of Cassation, by judgment published on 7 March 2024. The applicant complained that the confiscation of his assets following the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings was in breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Considering that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued as statute-barred, did the confiscation of his assets entail an imputation of criminal liability, in breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Episcopo and Bassani v. Italy , nos.   47284/16 and   84604/17, §§ 127-35, 19 December 2014, and, in general, Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 32483/19 and 35049/19, §§   168 ‑ 69, 11 June 2024)?