Published on 28 August 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 10846/14 Domenico RUGOLO and Others against Italy lodged on 13 January 2014 communicated on 10 July 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the confiscation of the applicants’ assets and the placement of Mr. Domenico Rugolo (“the first applicant”) under special police supervision for a period of five years, as a preventive measure, pursuant to Law no. 575 of 31 May 1965.

In two sets of criminal proceedings the first applicant was convicted of participating in a criminal organisation (Article 416 of the Criminal Code, “CC”) until respectively 1968 and 1983. In 2009, in the framework of a third set of proceedings, he was convicted at first instance for participating in a mafia-type criminal organisation between 1991 and 2008 (Article 416 bis CC); however, on 6 December 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and acquitted the applicant.

Meanwhile, in the framework of proceedings for the application of preventive measures, the national courts maintained that the first applicant was suspected of membership of a mafia-type criminal organisation and, based on his “special dangerousness” ( pericolosità qualificata ), placed him under special police supervision for five years. Additionally, the national courts confiscated a number of assets belonging to the first applicant, as well as assets belonging to his relatives (applicants nos. 2 to 8) which they considered to be at the first applicant’s disposal; they stated that such assets were disproportionate to the family’s lawful income and that the applicants were unable to demonstrate their lawful origin. Both preventive measures became final with judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 39146 of 23 September 2013.

The first applicant invokes Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, alleging the disproportionate character and excessive duration of the special police supervision he was subjected to. Furthermore, all applicants complain of a disproportionate interference with their property rights, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the confiscation of assets purchased long before the commission of crimes despite of the previous acquittal from the charges of participation in a mafia-type organization. The further submit that the courts made an erroneous assessment of the ownership and unlawful origin of the assets. Lastly, the applicants complain, under Article 6 of the Convention of the insufficient reasoning of national decisions concerning the above-mentioned issues.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the restriction on the first applicant’s right to liberty of movement in accordance with the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? In particular, taking into account that he had been acquitted from participation in a mafia-type criminal organisation and that his prior convictions for other crimes date back several years, was the finding of the first applicant’s dangerousness and his consequent placement under special police supervision for five years necessary, as required by Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 196, ECHR 2000-IV and, mutatis mutandis , Ivanov v. Ukraine , no. 15007/02, § 96, 7 December 2006)?

2. Was the confiscation of the applicants’ assets in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? Was the confiscation necessary and proportionate, taking into account, in particular:

(i) whether, in light of the first applicant’s acquittal from participation in a mafia-type organisation, the finding of special dangerousness and the subsequent confiscation of assets were justified;

(ii) whether the domestic authorities showed that the assets formally owned by applicants nos. 2 to 8 actually belonged to the first applicant in a reasoned manner, on the basis of an objective assessment of the factual evidence and without relying on a mere suspicion;

(iii) whether the domestic authorities showed that the confiscated assets could have been of wrongful origin in a reasoned manner, on the basis of an objective assessment of the factual evidence and without relying on a mere suspicion, also in light of the date of their acquisition (see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, § 215, 13 July 2021);

(iv) whether the applicants were afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting their arguments before the domestic courts and whether the latter duly examined the evidence submitted by the applicants (see Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania , no. 47911/15, § 78, 26 June 2018 and G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 302, 28 June 2018)?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant’s Name

Year of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

Represented by

1.Domenico RUGOLO

1935Italian

Oppido Mamertina

Mauro

ANETRINI

2.Giuseppe GERACE

1970Italian

Gioia Tauro

3.Natale GIUFFRE’

1967Italian

Villa San Giovanni

4.Carmela LUPPINO

1938Italian

Oppido Mamertina

5.Antonina RUGOLO

1970Italian

Villa San Giovanni

6.Grazia RUGOLO

1967Italian

Gioia Tauro

7.Romina RUGOLO

1970Italian

Gioia Tauro

8.Sonia RUGOLO

1972Italian

Gioia Tauro