CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 novembre 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 24 November 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24153/25 Amanda Marie KNOX against Italy lodged on 4 August 2025 communicated on 3 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6   §§   1 and 3 (a) of the Convention, namely in the context of the newly established European revision mechanism. Following a legislative reform of 2022 ( riforma Cartabia ), Article 628- bis was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure, providing for the possibility of lodging an appeal before the Supreme Court and to request, inter alia , the revocation of convictions which were rendered in violation of the Convention. The present application stems for the previous case Knox v.   Italy (no.   76577/13, 24 January 2019), where the Court examined the criminal procedure for slander instituted against the applicant and found a violation of: (i) Article 3 of the Convention, under its procedural limb, concerning the lack of an effective investigation concerning the applicant’s possible degrading treatment during preliminary investigations, (ii) Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), due to the absence of legal assistance during the applicant’s interrogation at 5.45   a.m. of 6 November 2007 ; and (iii) Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e), on account of the fact that the applicant’s interpreter had also acted as a mediator, trying to establish a personal and emotional connection with the applicant, while she was providing her version of the facts. Following the legislative reform of 2022, the applicant then lodged an appeal under Article 628- bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a revocation of her conviction. By judgment no. 47183 of 12 October 2023, the Supreme Court ordered the revocation of the final conviction for slander with regard to the violations found by the Court under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (e) of the Convention, namely concerning the applicant’s statements of 6 November 2007. At the same time, the Supreme Court found that a further element should be considered, i.e. the memorandum ( memoriale ) handwritten by the applicant of her own will a few hours after her statements and then brought to the attention of the police. It then remitted the case to the Assize Court of Appeal warranting a new examination of the case in order to assess: (1) whether the said memorandum should be considered as the means for the commission of the offence ( corpo del reato ) or as an element carrying a sole evidential value (2) as to the memorandum’s content, whether it should be considered as containing false accusations or as a retraction. The Assize Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, considering that the memorandum could be used to ground the conviction and contained false accusations. The applicant appealed on points of law complaining that the Assize Court failed to comply with the instructions given by the Supreme Court and that the case concerned a new charge, different from the one brought against her within the original proceedings. The applicant also relied on judgment no.   395 of 2016 of the Florence District Court by which she was acquitted of slander against the police officers who had interviewed her on 6   November 2007, on the ground of the severe stress experienced owing to the officers’ conduct in that context. Against this background, she complained that the memorandum had been considered as a means to commit the slander without duly assessing the context in which it had been written. By judgment no. 13512 of 23 January 2025, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld her conviction. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention in that her conviction was upheld based on the memorandum which was not part of the original charge brought against her within the original proceedings. She also alleged that the authorities failed to duly consider the context in which it was written, also in the light of the conclusions of the Court in the case Knox v. Italy (no.   76577/13, 24   January   2019) and of the meaning attributed to the memorandum by the Court in the said judgment. The applicant also claimed that her conviction was pronounced in breach of the principle of equality of arms. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the Court have jurisdiction to deal with the application without encroaching on the Committee of Minister’s prerogatives under Article   46? In particular, in relation to Knox v. Italy (no.   76577/13, 24   January 2019), does the present application raise a “new issue” ( Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 47, 11 July 2017; Mehmet Zeki Doğan v. Türkiye (no. 2) , no. 3324/19, §§ 54 and   56-57, 13   February   2024)?   2.     If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, did the domestic authorities duly consider the context in which the memorandum was written, in the light of the issue of the parallel proceeding for slander (judgment no.   395 of 2016 of the Florence District Court), the conclusions of the Court in the case Knox (cited above) and of the meaning attributed to the memorandum by the Court within the said judgment?   Has the principle of equality of arms been breached in the present case?   3.     Was the applicant informed in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, as required by Article   6 §   3   (a) of the Convention?