COURT (PLENARY)
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF GUZZARDI v. ITALY
 
(Application no. 7367/76)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
6 November 1980
 

In the Guzzardi case,
The European Court of Human Rights, taking its decision in plenary session in application of Rule 48 of the Rules of Court and composed of the following judges:
 Mr. G. WIARDA, President,
 Mr. G. BALLADORE PALLIERI,
 Mr. M. ZEKIA,
 Mr. J. CREMONA,
 Mr. Thór VILHJÁLMSSON,
 Mr. R. RYSSDAL,
 Mr. W. GANSHOF VAN DER MEERSCH,
 Sir  Gerald FITZMAURICE,
 Mrs. D. BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT,
 Mr. D. EVRIGENIS,
 Mr. P.-H. TEITGEN,
 Mr. G. LAGERGREN,
 Mr. L. LIESCH,
 Mr. F. GÖLCÜKLÜ,
 Mr. F. MATSCHER,
 Mr. J. PINHEIRO FARINHA,
 Mr. E. GARCIA DE ENTERRIA,
 Mr. B. WALSH,
and also Mr. M.-A. EISSEN, Registrar, and Mr. H. PETZOLD, Deputy Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 and 29 April and on 1 and 2 October 1980,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The Guzzardi case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"). The case originated in an application against the Italian Republic lodged with the Commission on 17 November 1975 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a national of that State, Mr. Michele Guzzardi, by means of a letter from his lawyer, Mr. Michele Catalano, to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. 2. The Commission’s request, to which was attached the report provided for under Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention, was lodged with the registry on 8 March 1979, within the period of three months laid down by Articles 32 par. 1 and 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47). The request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration made by the Italian Republic recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The purpose of the Commission’s request is to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether or not the facts of the case disclose a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 5 par. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention and, to a lesser extent, under Articles 3, 6, 8 and 9 (art. 3, art. 6, art. 8, art. 9). 3. The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included, as ex officio members, Mr. G. Balladore Pallieri, the elected judge of Italian nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr. G. Wiarda, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21 par. 3 (b) of the Rules of Court). On 30 March 1979, the Vice-President drew by lot, at the request of the President and in the presence of the Registrar, the names of the five other members, namely Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, Mrs. D. Bindschedler-Robert, Mr. P.-H. Teitgen, Mr. G. Lagergren and Mr. E. García de EnterrÍa (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 par. 4) (art. 43). 4. Mr. Wiarda assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 par. 5). At a meeting held on 18 May 1979, he ascertained the views of the Agent of the Italian Government ("the Government") and the Delegates of the Commission regarding the procedure to be followed. Immediately thereafter, he decided that the Government should have until 7 November to file a memorial and that the Delegates should be entitled to file a memorial in reply within two months from the date of the transmission of the Government’s memorial to them by the Registrar. On 7 November, the President extended the first of these time-limits until 13 December, following requests sent by the Government to the Registrar on 23 October and then, in different terms, on 5 November; he reduced the second time-limit to five weeks. The Government’s memorial was received at the registry on 13 December 1979. On 17 December, the Secretary to the Commission advised the Registrar that the Delegates would present their observations at the hearings. 5. After consulting, through the Registrar, the Agent of the Government and the Delegates of the Commission, the President directed on 18 December that the oral hearings should open on 29 January 1980. On 11 January, the President instructed the Registrar to obtain from the Commission a certain number of documents. They were produced on 15 and 23 January. 6. The oral hearings were held in public at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 29 January. Immediately before their opening, the Chamber had held a short preparatory meeting; it had authorised the representative of the Government to use the Italian language (Rule 27 par. 2). There appeared before the Court:
- for the Government:
 Mr. G. AZZARITI, State Counsel (avvocato dello Stato),
    Agent’s Delegate;
- for the Commission:
 Mr. J. FAWCETT,  Principal Delegate,
 Mr. J. FROWEIN,  Delegate. The Court heard addresses by those appearing and their replies to questions put by it and by two of its members. It requested them to produce several documents; the majority of these, and some other documents, were supplied by the Commission and the Government on 29 and 30 January and on 11 April and 26 June. 7. At the close of deliberations held on 30 and 31 January, the Chamber, considering that the case raised serious questions affecting the interpretation of the Convention, decided under Rule 48 to relinquish jurisdiction forthwith in favour of the plenary Court. Having obtained, through the Registrar, the agreement of the Agent of the Government and the concurring opinion of the Delegates of the Commission, the Court decided on 29 April that the proceedings would continue without further oral hearings (Rule 26). 8. Two documents which the President, Mr. Wiarda, had requested from the Commission on 31 January were supplied by its secretariat to the registry on 4 February. On 11 April and 21 May, respectively, the registry received the original Italian text and the French version - the official version for the Court (Rule 27 par. 1) - of a memorial filed by the Government to support certain of the documents which they had supplied (see paragraph 6 in fine above). On 12 May, the Secretary to the Commission transmitted to the Registrar two notes by the applicant’s lawyer, dated 11 January and 29 April; the second note contained comments on the aforesaid memorial and also referred back to the first note. AS TO THE FACTS
I. PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE CASE
A. The criminal proceedings taken against Mr. Guzzardi
9. Mr. Guzzardi, an Italian citizen born in 1942, had left Palermo (Sicily) in 1966 to take up residence in Vigevano (in the province of Pavia). He was arrested on 8 February 1973, placed in detention on remand in Milan and then charged with conspiracy and being an accomplice to the abduction on 18 December 1972 of a businessman; the latter had been freed by his kidnappers on 7 February 1973 after payment of a substantial ransom. The applicant was acquitted on 13 November 1976 by the Milan Regional Court (Tribunale di Milano) for lack of sufficient evidence, but convicted on 19 December 1979 by the Milan Court of Appeal which sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment and a fine. The criminal proceedings in question are not in issue, at least not in direct issue, in the present case. 10. Under Article 272 (first paragraph, item 2) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant’s detention on remand – during which he married his fiancée by whom he shortly afterwards had a son - could not continue for more than two years; it thus had to terminate on 8 February 1975 at the latest. 11. On that date, Mr. Guzzardi was removed from Milan gaol and taken under police escort to the island of Asinara, which lies off Sardinia. B. The measure of "special supervision" applied to the applicant
12. On 23 December 1974, the Milan Chief of Police (questore) had in fact sent to the Milan State prosecutor (procuratore della Repubblica) a report recommending that Mr. Guzzardi be subjected to the measure of "special supervision" provided for in section 3 of Act no. 1423 of 27 December 1956 ("the 1956 Act" - see paragraphs 45-51 below) and section 2 of Act no. 575 of 31 May 1965 ("the 1965 Act" - see paragraph 52 below). The report referred to indications that although the applicant claimed to be working in the building trade, he was actually engaged in illegal activities and belonged to a band (cosca) of mafiosi; it listed four convictions pronounced against him in 1965, 1967, 1969 and 1972 and described him as "one of the most dangerous" of individuals. Following an application made in accordance with this recommendation by the State prosecutor on 14 January 1975, the Milan Regional Court (2nd Criminal Chamber) directed on 30 January that Mr. Guzzardi be placed under special supervision for three years, the measure to be combined with the obligation to reside "in the district (comune) of the island of Asinara", a locality that had been designated by the Ministry of the Interior. In its decision the Court further directed that the applicant should:
- start looking for work within a month, establish his residence in the prescribed locality, inform the supervisory authorities immediately of his address and not leave the place fixed without first notifying them;
- report to the supervisory authorities twice a day and whenever called upon to do so;
- lead an honest and law-abiding life and not give cause for suspicion;
- not associate with persons convicted of criminal offences and subjected to preventive or security measures;
- not return to his residence later than 10 p.m. and not go out before 7 a.m., except in case of necessity and after having given notice in due time to supervisory authorities;
- not keep or carry any arms;
- not frequent bars or night-clubs and not take part in public meetings;
- inform the supervisory authorities in advance of the telephone number and name of the person telephoned or telephoning each time he wished to make or receive a long-distance call. 13. Mr. Guzzardi appealed to the Milan Court of Appeal; his appeal had no suspensive effect (section 4, sixth paragraph, of the 1956 Act) and so did not prevent the contested decision from being put into effect. In a memorial of 10 February 1975, his lawyer, Mr. Catalano, challenged the decision on a number of grounds, alleging that it was invalid and unjustified.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 8
Outcome: no_violation