CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 décembre 2023

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Legal summary May 2026 Macagnino v. Italy (relinquishment) - 61799/15 and 62690/15   Article 6 Civil proceedings Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Non-conviction based “preventive confiscation” of the applicants’ home and other assets presumed to be proceeds of unlawful activities: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Non-conviction based “preventive confiscation” of the applicants’ home and other assets presumed to be proceeds of unlawful activities: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Non-conviction based “preventive confiscation” of the applicants’ home and other assets presumed to be proceeds of unlawful activities: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber [This summary also covers the relinquishment in the case of Marzo v. Italy , 62690/15] The applicants are husband (the second applicant) and wife (the first applicant). The second applicant was declared “socially dangerous” by the domestic courts on the grounds that he had committed a number of offences (theft, handling stolen goods and illegal possession of weapons) between 1983 and 1999. In 2013 the competent District Court ordered the confiscation of the assets the applicants had acquired between 1980 and 2012, including the family home. The court found that the assets belonged to the second applicant even though they were formally owned by the first applicant. It further held that the assets were disproportionate to the couple’s lawful income and that their lawful origin had not been demonstrated. The applicants challenged the measure, arguing, inter alia, that some of the confiscated assets had been acquired before and after the period in which the second applicant had been considered socially dangerous and had derived from additional income that had not been declared to the tax authorities. In 2015 the Court of Cassation observed that “the vast majority” of the confiscated assets had been purchased during the period in which the second applicant had been declared socially dangerous and that, in accordance with its well-established case-law, the preventive measure had to be applied in respect of all unlawfully acquired assets, including those deriving from tax evasion. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants complain that some of their confiscated assets had been acquired before and after the period during which the second applicant had been considered socially dangerous. The confiscation had therefore disregarded well-established criteria in the Court of Cassation’s case-law and was not proportionate. The applicants also complain under Article 8 of a disproportionate interference with their right to a family life and to home as the house that constituted their domicile was confiscated. Lastly, they complain under Article 6 of a violation of the principle of equality of arms, arguing, inter alia , that: (a) their request to appoint an expert for assessing the value of the assets was dismissed; (b) it was very difficult for them to prove the circumstances on which they relied due to the excessively long period over which their incomes and expenses were examined; and (c) the domestic courts did not duly take into account evidence provided by them. On 5 May 2026 a Chamber of the Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber both in this case and in that of Cavallotti and Others v. Italy.     © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .