Tokens: However
,
the
domestic
courts
did
not
change
their
opinion
about
the
nature
of
the
confiscation
measure
under
domestic
law
.
They
considered
the
measure
still
to
be
an
“
administrative
sanction
”
,
not
a
“
penalty
”
,
and
certainly
not
a
penalty
of
a
“
criminal
”
nature
(
under
domestic
law
)
(
see
paragraph
121
of
the
present
judgment
)
.
This
explains
,
in
our
opinion
,
why
the
domestic
courts
accepted
that
confiscation
could
be
ordered
even
if
the
owner
had
not
been
convicted
for
an
offence
,
either
because
he
could
never
be
charged
with
a
crime
(
like
a
legal
person
)
,
or
because
,
although
found
to
be
responsible
for
the
illegality
committed
,
he
was
acquitted
(
from
the
strictly
criminal
point
of
view
)
as
a
result
of
a
time
bar
(
prescrizione
in
Italian
)
.
This
latter
possibility
is
highlighted
by
the
Constitutional
Court
in
its
judgment
no
.
49
of
2015
,
which
states
that
,
under
domestic
law
,
it
is
not
in
itself
impossible
that
an
acquittal
on
the
grounds
of
time
-
barring
may
be
accompanied
by
a
statement
of
more
detailed
reasons
relating
to
“
responsibility
”
,
for
the
sole
purpose
of
the
confiscation
of
land
that
has
been
unlawfully
fragmented
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O