Published on 26 May 2026
 
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 21764/15
Emiliano DEL BUONO and Others
against Italy
lodged on 2 May 2015
communicated on 5 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the seizure of the applicants’ assets, ordered in the context of criminal proceedings against a third party.
The applicants’ real estate properties were seized on the assumption that the assets belonged to P.D.B. (respectively the father and ex-husband of the applicants), who was investigated in two sets of proceedings for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering. The applicants were not parties to the criminal proceedings against P.D.B.
In the context of the money laundering proceedings, in 2007, the judge for preliminary investigations of Cuneo ordered the preventive seizure aimed at the subsequent confiscation (sequestro preventivo) of the applicant’s real estate on the assumption that P.D.B. was the real owner and had purchased those assets with money of illicit provenance.
On 10 May 2011, P.D.B. was acquitted of the offence of money laundering. Nevertheless, the seizure remained in place.
Meanwhile, on 19 March 2013, the Cuneo District Court convicted P.D.B. of bankruptcy fraud and ordered the seizure of the same assets as a precautionary measure (sequestro conservativo). P.D.B.’s conviction became final on 19 September 2019.
The applicants requested the return of their properties, arguing that they were unrelated to the proceeds of the bankruptcy fraud. Following several unfavourable rulings by the District Court subsequently quashed four times by the Court of Cassation, the applicants’ appeal was finally declared inadmissible on 5 November 2014. In particular the Court of Cassation, noting that the preventive seizure had been converted into the measure ordered in the bankruptcy proceedings and that these were still ongoing, found that it could not rule on the matter.
The applicants complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the allegedly unreasonable length of the seizure and of the rejection of their requests for restitution, despite the fact that they were never accused of any offence and had provided evidence of the lawful origin of the sums used for the purchase of the assets.
 
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
1.  Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the remedy provided for by Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001 available and effective for the applicants to complain of the length of the seizure in the present case?
 
2.  Taking into account all the circumstances of the specific case and, in particular, the duration of the seizure, the need to maintain it in view of the progress of the criminal proceedings, its consequences for the applicants, the existence of a legal remedy to challenge the continuation of the seizure and the implementation of procedural safeguards, was the seizure proportionate for the purposes of Article 1 Protocol No.1 (see OOO Avrora Maloetazhnoe Stroitelstvo v. Russia, no. 5738/18, § 69, 7 April 2020; BENet Praha, spol.
s r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 33908/04, §§ 115-116, 24 February 2011; Credit Europe Leasing Ifn S.A. v. Romania, no. 38072/11, § 87, 21 July 2020; Pendov v. Bulgaria, no. 44229/11, § 44, 26 March 2020)?
 
The parties are invited to provide copies of the decisions issued in the proceedings for bankruptcy fraud (judgment of the Cuneo District Court of 19 March 2013 and judgment of the Turin Court of Appeal of 23 January 2018).
 
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
 
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Emiliano DEL BUONO
1989
Italian
Chesières
2.
Matilde DEL BUONO
1993
Italian
Chesières
3.
Tatiana VIZIO
1964
Italian
Chesières