issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 305 (2024)
19.12.2024
Judgments and decisions of 19 December 2024
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing eight judgments1 and
12 decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for two Chamber judgments in the cases of Grande Oriente
d’Italia v. Italy (application no. 29550/17), and X and Others v. Slovenia (nos. 27746/22 and
28291/22);
four Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
the 12 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Episcopo and Bassani v. Italy (application no. 47284/16)
The applicants, Luigi Episcopo and Nelso Bassani, are Italian nationals who were born in 1956 and
1960 and live in Polla and Arsiè (both in Italy) respectively.
The case concerns the confiscation of the applicants’ assets, which were considered to constitute
the direct proceeds of crime (confisca diretta) under Article 322 ter of the Italian Criminal Code,
despite the related proceedings having been discontinued as time-barred.
Mr Episcopo, who was the director of and a shareholder in a company in the field of tourist facility
construction and management, had been convicted at first instance of aggravated fraud for having
submitted false information and documents to the authorities in order to obtain public funds for the
construction of a hotel (truffa aggravata per il conseguimento di erogazioni pubbliche).
Mr Bassani, who was the director and sole shareholder of a company, had, together with other
persons, been convicted at first instance of participating in a criminal organisation and of issuing
false tax statements (namely, invoices for non-existing operations).
On appeal, both sets of proceedings became time-barred and were discontinued. Nevertheless the
domestic courts ordered the confiscation of the assets of the applicants that they considered to be
proceeds of the crimes for which the applicants had previously been convicted at first instance.
Particularly, in the case of Mr Episcopo, the hotel that had been built with the public funds was
confiscated up to the value of 844,121 euros (EUR), whereas in the case of Mr Bassani, his assets
were confiscated for the overall amount of EUR 32,410.
Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
both applicants complain that the confiscation of their assets despite the discontinuance of the
proceedings was unlawful. Mr Episcopo also complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request
is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber
will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final
on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of
its
execution.
Further
information
about
the
execution
process
can
be
found
here:
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
a breach of the principle of legal certainty, and, under Article 6 § 2 of the European Convention, that
his right to be presumed innocent had been breached. Mr Bassani also complains that the
confiscation of his assets had lacked a foreseeable legal basis and was disproportionate, in breach of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.
No violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the first applicant
Violation of Article 6 § 2 in respect of the first applicant
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the second applicant
Just satisfaction:
costs and expenses: 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the first applicant
Beley v. Ukraine (no. 2705/20)
The applicant, Vitaliy Nikolayevich Beley, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and lives in
Chutove in the Poltava Region of Ukraine.
The case concerns the continued, and allegedly ineffective, investigation into the applicant’s
complaints of police brutality after the Court’s 2019 judgment in his case in which it found that he
had been tortured and that there had not been an effective investigation into his allegations.
The applicant complains under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention about the
State’s continued failure to investigate his complaints, and submits, in particular, that he has not
been informed of the start of the investigation and has not been granted victim status. He claims
that no actual investigative measures have been undertaken at all.
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 1,800
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments
and
further
information
about
the
Court
can
be
found
on
https://www.echr.coe.int/home. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:
www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.
Press contacts
[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)
Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
2