CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 février 2026

.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 23   February 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no.   1314/25 Edoardo MOSCARELLI against Italy lodged on 23   December 2024 communicated on 2   February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Court of Cassation’s dismissal of the applicant’s claim on the basis of a ground raised ex officio , which had not been subject to adversarial debate between the parties. The applicant, together with B.M.M., had provided a suretyship ( fideiussione ) in favour of a bank to secure the obligations undertaken by a joint-stock company, O. S.p.A. Following O. S.p.A.’s bankruptcy, the bank obtained an order for payment ( decreto ingiuntivo ) against the company and the guarantors to satisfy its claim. The bank subsequently initiated enforcement proceedings against the applicant, which concluded in 2011 with the recovery of a total of 135,918.54   euros following the forced sale of the applicant’s property. In 2016, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the bank, seeking restitution of the amount collected, arguing that the bank’s claim had already been extinguished on 6   October 2004, when the other guarantor, B.M.M., had reached a settlement agreement with the bank. The applicant submitted that he had only become aware of this fact on 28   June 2016. The applicant’s claim was dismissed at all levels of the domestic courts. In particular, in judgment no.   23283 of 28   August 2024, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, holding that a person subject to enforcement proceedings cannot initiate separate proceedings against the enforcing creditor to seek restitution of undue payments. It found that the applicant had failed to make use of the specific legal remedy available to challenge the lawfulness of the enforcement proceedings (i.e. opposizione ). Under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Court of Cassation violated the principle of adversarial proceedings by relying on an argument never previously discussed and to which he had not had the opportunity to respond. 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? In particular, was the principle of adversarial proceedings respected, given the applicant’s claim that he was “taken by surprise” when the Court of Cassation based its judgment no.   23283 of 2024 on a ground raised ex   officio (see Vegotex International S.A. v.   Belgium [GC], no.   49812/09, §   135, 3   November 2022; Ben Amamou v.   Italy , no.   49058/20, §§   49-55, 29   June 2023, and the cases cited therein; and Clinique des Acacias and Others v.   France , nos.   65399/01 and 3 others, §§   38 and 43, 13   October 2005)?