CASE OF DE TOMMASO v. ITALY
Hearing: de Tommaso v. Italy (no. 43395/09)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-05-20 00:00:00)
Application no.: 43395/09
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-02-23 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0223JUD004339509
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 5;5-1;6;6-1;13;13+P4-2-1;35;37;37-1-c;41;P4-2;P4-2-1;P4-2-3
Judges: András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ján Šikuta;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: CONTICCHIO D.
Issue: Act no. 1423 of 27 December 1956, provides for the imposition of preventive measures against “persons presenting a danger for security and public morality”. ; Section 2 ter of Act no. 575/1965 referring to Mafia-type organisations
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V;Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 95, Reports 1996-VI;Aleksandr Nikolayevich Dikiy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 2399/12, 16 December 2014;Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, § 51, 20 November 2012;Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013;Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, ECHR 2012;Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09, § 37, ECHR 2014;Baudoin v. France, no. 35935/03, § 78, 18 November 2010;Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V;Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy, no. 399/02, 13 November 2007;Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2015;Bongiorno and Others v. Italy, no. 4514/07, 5 January 2010;Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 90, ECHR 2012;Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131;Büyükdağ v. Turkey, no. 28340/95, § 64, 21 December 2000;Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 104, ECHR 2016;Bystrowski v. Poland, no. 15476/02, § 36, 13 September 2011;Capitani and Campanella v. Italy, no. 24920/07, 17 May 2011;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012;Ciobanu v. Romania and Italy, no. 4509/08, § 22, 9 July 2013;Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 40, Series A no. 247-C;Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, §§ 61 and 80, 26 October 2006;Donadze v. Georgia, no. 74644/01, §§ 30-31, 7 March 2006;Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000;Enea v. Italy ([GC], no. 74912/01, ECHR 2009;Frascati v. Italy (dec.), no. 5382/08, §§ 21-22, 13 May 2014;Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, §§ 20-26, ECHR 2003 XI;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I;Gülmez v. Turkey, no. 16330/02, §§ 27 31, 20 May 2008;Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39;Ielcean v. Romania (dec.), no. 76048/11, §§ 18-19, 7 October 2014;Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, ECHR 2006 XIV;Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007;Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, 11 July 2013;Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 40, Series A no. 260-A;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI;Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000 IV;Laidin v. France (no. 2), no. 39282/98, § 76, 7 January 2003;Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 77, Series A no. 116;Leone v. Italy, no. 30506/07, 2 February 2010;Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I;Mancini v. Italy, no. 44955/98, § 17, ECHR 2001 IX;Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010;Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 23, ECHR 2000 X;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, ECHR 2009;Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, 8 October 2013;Musumeci v. Italy, no. 33695/96, § 36, 11 January 2005;N.C. v. Italy, no. 24952/94, § 33, 11 January 2001;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, ECHR 2012;Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 40896/98, §§ 60 and 74, 30 September 2004;Ninescu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 47306/07, § 53, 15 July 2014;Pasquale Miele v. Italy (dec.), no. 37262/03, 16 September 2014;Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 82, ECHR 2004-I;Perre and Others v. Italy, no. 1905/05, 8 July 2008;Pocius v. Lithuania, no. 35601/04, § 43, 6 July 2010;Prencipe v. Monaco, no. 43376/06, §§ 57 62, 16 July 2009;Pubblicità Grafiche Perri S.R.L v. Italy (dec.), no. 30746/03, 14 October 2014;Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281 A;Ramazan Taş v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5382/10, 14 October 2014;Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, ECHR 1999-III;Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, 23 May 2006;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V;RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 104, ECHR 2011;Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 88, Series A no. 61;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012;Stegarescu and Bahrin v. Portugal, no. 46194/06, §§ 37-38, 6 April 2010;Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30;T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 107, ECHR 2001-V;Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR 2003-VI;Tayfur Tunç and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 22373/07, §§ 20-21, 24 March 2015;Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, 20 April 2010;Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, ECHR 2004 VI;Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 48, Series A no. 323;X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 58, ECHR 2013
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing);No violation of Article 13+P4-2-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement;Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general});Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE