FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SIMONCINI v. SAN MARINO
(Application no. 3106/24)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
9 April 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Simoncini v. San Marino,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Vahe Grigoryan, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 3106/24) against the Republic of San Marino lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 January 2024 by a San Marinese national, Mr Massimiliano Simoncini (“the applicant”), who was born in 1963 and lives in Montegiardino, and was represented by Mr A. Masiello, a lawyer practising in Borgo Maggiore;
the decision to give notice of the complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 concerning the right to a tribunal established by law and the right to a reasoned decision to the San Marinese Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms S. Bernardi, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 19 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, who is a member of the San Marino judiciary, for misconduct that he committed in February 2023. 2. By a judgment of 13 July 2023, the Judicial Council (Consiglio Giudiziario), deciding as a court of first instance, established the applicant’s disciplinary liability under section 12 of Constitutional Law no. 1/2021 and issued the disciplinary sanction of a warning (ammonimento). 3. On 4 September 2023 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court (Collegio garante della costituzionalità delle norme), under section 16(10) of Constitutional Law no. 1/2021. 4. By a decree of 12 September 2023, the President of the Constitutional Court declared the appeal inadmissible because the applicant was not represented by a lawyer, as required by section 9(1) of Qualified Law no. 55/2003 and by section 12(1) of the Internal Regulations of the Constitutional Court. 5. On 15 September 2023 a lawyer appointed by the applicant submitted a brief declaring that he was formally ratifying the applicant’s appeal, thus remedying the initial lack of representation. He also argued that the applicant had initially lodged the appeal without a representative on account of the difficulty of finding a lawyer during the summer holidays and that he had been entitled to do so under certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which applied also to disciplinary proceedings. 6. By a decree of 22 September 2023, the President of the Constitutional Court held that the appeal was inadmissible, reiterating that representation was mandatory pursuant to section 9(1) of Qualified Law no. 55/2003 and under section 12(1) of the Internal Regulations of the Constitutional Court and stating that the lawyer’s brief had been submitted after the expiry of the 30-day time-limit for appeal. 7. The applicant subsequently filed a plea of nullity (querela nullitatis), asking for the annulment of the two decrees, and a constitutional complaint in respect of several provisions regulating the disciplinary proceedings. To the Court’s knowledge, no decision has been delivered in respect of those applications.

Outcome for Article 6: violation