CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 20 October 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 67714/12 Gaetano GIANNONE and Maria NIGRO against Italy lodged on 15 October 2012 communicated on 2 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confiscation of the applicants’ assets as a preventive measure pursuant to Law no. 575 of 31   May   1965. The first applicant (Mr Giannone) was convicted of participation in a mafia-type organisation and of other crimes. In a separate set of proceedings for the application of preventive measures initiated in 2004, he was declared socially dangerous in accordance with Article   2 ter (3) of Law no. 575 of 1965 ( pericolosità qualificata or “special dangerousness”). On these grounds, the domestic courts ordered his placement under special police supervision, the confiscation of his assets, as well as of assets formally belonging to his wife, the second applicant (Ms   Nigro), which the courts considered to be at the first applicant’s disposal. At all stages of the domestic proceedings the applicants, unsuccessfully, requested that a public hearing take place. The confiscation became final by the Court of Cassation’s judgment no. 414 of 11   April   2012. The applicants complain of a violation of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing before the District Court and the Court of Appeal in the proceedings relating to the preventive measures.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the lack of a public hearing in the applicant’s case, in accordance with Article   4 of Law no. 1423/1956 and Article 2 ter of Law no.   575/1965, as applicable at the relevant time, compatible with Article 6 §   1 of the Convention (see Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy , no.   399/02, §   41, 13   November   2007; Perre and Others v. Italy , no. 1905/05, § 26, 8   July   2008; Bongiorno and Others v. Italy , no.   4514/07, §§ 27-30, 5   January   2010; Leone v.   Italy , no. 30506/07, §§ 26-29, 2   February   2010; and Capitani and Campanella v. Italy , no.   24920/07, §§ 26-29, 17   May   2011; and Archinà and Commisso v.   Italy (dec.) , nos.   43413/11 and   64883/11, 19   June   2025)?