CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 janvier 2003

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 49 January 2003 Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy (dec.) - 36681/97 Decision 16.1.2003 [Section III] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Vote Disenfranchisement as consequence of preventive measures: admissible Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom of movement One-year preventive measure remaining in force for more than 12 months following notification: admissible In March 1994 preventive measures were imposed on the applicant for one year by the District Court, which found that although he had not been convicted of any offence he was an habitual offender and thus “socially dangerous” within the meaning of Law No. 1423/56. The applicant was notified on 3 May 1994. His appeal was dismissed in July 1994 and the order was notified to the municipality two months later. In July 1995 the police drew up, in the applicant’s presence, the document setting out the obligations imposed on him. He applied to the District Court for a declaration that the order had expired on 2 May 1995, i.e. one year after it was notified to him. The court held that the notification was not a sufficient act to start the execution of the order: the law provided for the order to be forwarded to the police for enforcement and the Court of Cassation’s case law established that such orders did not cease to apply on the expiry of the duration indicated, independently of execution. The starting date was when the police had drawn up the document. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation, which held that the special supervision had ceased to apply on 2 May 1995, since the law provided that the period of supervision started to run on the date of notification. One of the consequences of the special supervision order was that the applicant was struck off the electoral register for its duration. He was therefore unable to vote in the elections for the Regional and Provincial Councils, for the President of the Province (April 1995) and in a referendum (June 1995). He was reinstated in the electoral register in July 1995, but struck off again in November 1995 on the basis that his special supervision order was still in force. He unsuccessfully challenged his exclusion from the register in April 1996, the month of parliamentary elections. Admissible under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Partly inadmissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The word “legislature” in the text of this provision is not limited to the national parliament but it must be interpreted in the light of the constitutional structures of the State in question. The power to legislate may be vested in bodies other than parliament, but must be distinguished from the power to make regulations and by-laws. The Italian Provinces have the power to adopt regulations on local matters within the limits of the principles set out in national legislation but the Constitution does not confer on provincial authorities legislative power within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Similarly, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not apply to referendums. Accordingly, the part of the complaint referring to the provincial elections and the referendum was incompatible ratione materiae . Admissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the applicant's exclusion from regional and parliamentary elections.   © 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