CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 13 April 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 58553/19 Barbara PANZERI against Italy lodged on 4 November 2019 communicated on 26 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confiscation of the applicant’s assets in the context of criminal proceedings which were discontinued following a period of probation. The applicant was charged with the offence of importing counterfeit goods. In 2010, the Lecco judge for the preliminary investigations ordered the seizure of an apartment and a car belonging to the applicant, in view of their possible confiscation on the basis of Article 474 bis of the Criminal Code. In particular, the judge considered that the assets had been used for the commission of the crime. The applicant was placed on probation and on 12 September 2016, having ascertained the positive outcome of the probation period, the Lecco District Court discontinued the proceedings against her. On 12 October 2017, the Lecco District Court, acting as enforcement judge, ordered the restitution of the seized assets to the applicant. Nevertheless, upon request of the public prosecutor, on 2 January 2018 the District Court ordered the confiscation of the previously seized assets, on the basis of Article 474 bis of the Criminal Code. Dismissing the applicant’s opposition, on 3 September 2018 the District Court confirmed the confiscation, finding that it had been sufficiently established that the applicant had used the assets for the commission of the offence. The measure was finally upheld by the Court of Cassation on 7   May   2019.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the confiscation of the assets that have been used or were destined to be used in the commission of the crime, as prescribed by Article 474 bis of the Criminal Code, be considered a “penalty” within the meaning of Article   7   § 1 of the Convention (see, for the general principles, G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy   [GC], nos.   1828/06   and 2 others, § 211 ss., 28 June 2018, and Episcopo and Bassani v. Italy , nos.   47284/16   and   84604/17, §   68, 19   December 2024, and   Garofalo and Others v. Italy   (dec.), nos.   47269/18   and 3   others, §§   94-98, 21 January 2025)?   2.     If so, was the applicant subject to a penalty in the absence of a previous finding of liability, in breach of Article 7 of the Convention (see   G.I.E.M   S.r.l. and Others v.   Italy   [GC], nos.   1828/06   and 2 Others, §§   241 ‑ 261, 28 June 2018 and   Petruzzo and Others v. Italy , nos. 1986/09 and 67556/13, § 136, 9 October 2025 ) ?   3.     Taking into account that the proceedings had been discontinued following the positive outcome of the probation period, was the confiscation of the applicant’s assets necessary and proportionate to the public interest pursued, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?