CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 novembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 102 November 2007 Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy - 399/02 Judgment 13.11.2007 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Public hearing Lack of public hearing in proceedings for the imposition of preventive measures: violation   Facts : Proceedings were brought against the first applicant for conspiracy. He was eventually acquitted. Suspecting him of being a member of a criminal organisation, the public prosecutor’s department had brought parallel proceedings to ensure the application of the preventive measures provided for by law. The division of the court responsible for applying those measures ordered the seizure of numerous assets belonging to the applicants. The remainder of the proceedings were held in private, under a law which rules out any public hearings in such cases. The court ordered the applicant to be placed under police supervision and issued a four-year compulsory residence order against him. In addition, it ordered the confiscation of the assets seized earlier. The first applicant appealed. The Court of Appeal, sitting in chambers, partially modified the order and upheld the lower court’s decision for the remainder. The first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by the Court of Cassation. Law : The holding in chambers of proceedings aimed at applying preventive measures, both at first instance and on appeal, was expressly provided for by law and parties had no possibility of requesting or obtaining a public hearing. Higher interests, such as protecting the private life of minors or third parties indirectly concerned by a financial investigation, had sometimes to be taken into account in proceedings of this type. Furthermore, proceedings aimed mainly at verifying finances and movements of capital could be highly technical. However, it was important not to lose sight of what was at stake in preventive procedures or of the effects they could have on the personal situations of the people involved. These procedures were aimed at the confiscation of assets and capital, and could therefore directly and significantly affect a person’s financial situation. With so much at stake, it could not be said that public scrutiny was not a necessary condition to guarantee the rights of the interested parties. The Court considered it essential that litigants in proceedings for the application of preventive measures should be offered at least the opportunity to request a public hearing before the specialised sections of the ordinary and appeal courts. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41   – Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation sufficient.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes