Published on 15 May 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 25712/21 Allegra Gaia Selvaggia GUCCI BARBIERI and Alessandra Samantha Silvana GUCCI against Italy lodged on 12 May 2021 communicated on 25 April 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the domestic courts’ decision that the applicants pay to their mother an annual sum of 1,100,000 Swiss francs (CHF) from their paternal inheritance, despite the fact that their father was killed at their mother’s behest.

In 1993, the applicants’ parents divorced and entered into an agreement by virtue of which their father undertook, among other things, to pay to their mother an annual lifelong grant of CHF 1,100,000.

At the time of his death, the father was in a relationship with P.F. After the mother’s final conviction, P.F. sued her for damages and obtained approximately 690,000 euros (EUR) in compensation.

However, as the mother did not have any income or assets, P.F. filed a civil suit against the applicants in which she asked for enforcement of the agreement of 1993. The mother joined the civil suit against her daughters. Indeed, the applicants had never paid the grant to their mother following their father’s death since, according to Italian law, divorce agreements are no longer enforceable after the debtor spouse’s death and, in any event, following her conviction their mother was subject to a declaration of unworthiness to succeed ( indegnità a succedere ).

The first- and second-instance courts endorsed the applicants’ arguments. In 2017, however, the Court of Cassation quashed the decision for incorrect application of the law on the interpretation of contracts and remitted the case to the Milan Court of Appeal which, subsequently, granted their mother’s claim. The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation which, however, dismissed the appeal on the ground that it did not comply with the formal requirements of the principle of the autonomy of the appeal in cassation ( autosufficienza del ricorso in cassazione ).

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were deprived of their right of access to court, due to the Court of Cassation declaring their appeal inadmissible on point of law. Under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they also complain that they were ordered to pay their mother’s grant, notwithstanding her conviction of their father’s murder, thereby permitting her to profit from the crime.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of cassation on the ground that the applicants had not complied with the formal requirements of the principle of the autonomy of the appeal in cassation ( autosufficienza del ricorso in cassazione ) impose a disproportionate restriction on the applicants’ right to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Succi and Others v. Italy , nos. 55064/11 and 2 others, §§ 71-85, 28 October 2021)?

In particular, was the application of this principle compatible with the Court’s case-law on "excessive formalism" (see, among many others, Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 80-82, 87-88 and 90-99, 5 April 2018 and Succi and Others , cited above, §§ 86-95)?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Velcea and Mazăre v. Romania , no. 64301/01, §§ 125-134, 1 December 2009)?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary pursuant to Article 8 § 2 considering the applicants’ obligation to pay the grant to their mother?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Zolotas v. Greece (no. 2) , no. 66610/09, §§ 39-44, ECHR 2013 (extracts))?

If so, did the domestic courts’ decision granting an annual sum of CHF 1,100,000 to their mother, following their father’s death and given the life-long nature of the payments as qualified in the agreement, represent an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine , no. 48553/99, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2002 ‑ VII)?