A.F. and M.F. v. Italy

On 25 April 2024, the ECtHR ruled on the case A.F. and M.F. v. Italy. The applicants, a mother and a son, claimed that their right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR had been violated due to provisional measures taken by domestic courts since 2015 regarding another family member. The Italian government acknowledged the violation of Article 8 of the ECHR and offered an amicable settlement. In this case, the government proposed compensation of EUR 25,000 for moral damages and EUR 1,000 for legal fees. The Court, recognizing their agreement, decided there was no need to continue examining the case. 

While amicable settlements are often seen as a positive way to resolve disputes quickly and ensure compensation, they also have limitations. They prevent the Court from establishing a legal precedent, which could guide future cases and help develop its case law. Without a ruling, important legal principles may remain unclear, limiting the development of judicial practices. Also, these settlements often avoid public and legal examination. A decision from the Court could have highlighted the violation, raised public awareness, and possibly influenced future legal reforms. 

Contrada v. Italy

On May 23, 2024, the ECtHR ruled on the case Contrada v. Italy, concerning the legality of telephone interceptions and a home search conducted against the applicant, a former senior police official in Italy. The applicant’s communications were intercepted in 2017 due to his contacts with police officers under suspicion of corruption and obstruction of justice. He alleged violations of Articles 6, 8, and 13 of the ECHR, arguing that the measures infringed on his right to privacy and lacked effective judicial oversight. The ECtHR found the applicant directly affected by the measures, dismissing the Government’s argument that he lacked victim status. While the claim regarding the home search was deemed inadmissible, the ECtHR unanimously ruled that the interception and transcription of his communications constituted a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. It awarded the applicant EUR 9,000 in non-pecuniary damages. This case highlights the need for stronger safeguards against disproportionate surveillance measures and reinforces the ECtHR’s role in ensuring that law enforcement practices comply with ECHR standards.

Cracò v. Italy

The ECtHR issued the decision on 13 June 2024 in the case Cracò v. Italy. The case concerned the online publication of a judicial decision that disclosed the applicant’s sensitive medical data, violating his right to privacy and breaching Italian data protection law. Despite recognizing the breach and awarding compensation, the Court of Cassation failed to ensure the contentious judgment’s removal or redaction. The ECtHR unanimously found a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, holding that Italy must, within three months, either remove the judgment from public databases or replace it with a redacted version. The ECtHR deemed that the finding of a violation constituted per se sufficient just satisfaction, dismissing the applicant’s claim for further compensation. This case shows that even if a ruling affirms the right to privacy, the refusal to grant effective redress disregards the prolonged harm suffered due to the continued online availability of sensitive data. Protecting personal data is integral to human dignity, and states must not only acknowledge violations but also ensure full and effective redress, including pecuniary compensation, where appropriate. This judgment underscores the need for stricter enforcement mechanisms to safeguard data protection rights and prevent similar breaches under the ECHR.

Palmeri v. Italy

The ECtHR ruled on the case Palmeri v. Italy on 25 July 2024. An anonymous denunciation was made via a phone call to the Police Headquarters (Questura) of Milan about an alleged drug-dealing incident in July 2015. Under Article 103 § 3 of Presidential Decree no. 309/1990 (consolidated laws on drug addiction), the police conducted an urgent search at the applicant's home, seizing hashish and packaging materials. The applicant and his son were found guilty of drug dealing. The applicant filed an appeal in March 2018, arguing that the objects seized during the house search should not constitute evidence to be used in court. The appeal was rejected, and the petition to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 24 January 2020. Within the six-month term, on 18 June 2020, the applicant filed a complaint before the ECtHR, asserting that the search conducted at his residence did not fall within the exceptions under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the ECHR. According to Italian law, a house search must be based on named sources of information, thereby excluding anonymous denunciations.

The main question the ECtHR addressed was whether the immediate police search conducted at the applicant’s residence complied with the second paragraph of Article 8 ECHR. The ECtHR, in its scrutiny, noted that under Article 35.1 of the ECHR, the applicant must have exhausted the effective domestic remedies available and applied to the ECtHR within six months from the date of the final decision of the domestic court, as the Convention read at the time the case was taken up. However, the Court considered that if an appeal to domestic remedies was unlikely to provide redress to the applicant, it would not be subject to the six-month time limit. Looking at the case law of the Court of Cassation and also considering the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, it was evident that objects seized during a house search could indeed constitute evidence in court, regardless of the nature of the search, as long as their ownership was illegal and they were used in the commission of the crime under consideration. Therefore, the remedies the applicant resorted to, in particular the claim before the Cassation Court, could not be considered effective. The ECtHR declared the case inadmissible by a majority as the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month rule.

De Candia v. Italy

The ECtHR ruled on the case De Candia v. Italy on 26 September 2024. The applicant claimed that the Italian authorities had violated his right to private and family life by refusing to let him attend his father’s funeral while the applicant was under house arrest. The Italian government admitted the violation and offered to pay EUR 3,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for legal costs. Although the applicant did not respond to this offer, the Court decided that the proposed compensation was fair based on previous similar cases. Consequently, it saw no reason to continue examining the case and removed it from its list. 

Hodza v. Italy

On 26 September 2024, the ECtHR ruled on the case Hodza v. Italy. The applicant alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 and Article 8 ECHR. However, despite being duly notified, he failed to submit observations within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the ECtHR, pursuant to Article 37 § 1(a) of the ECHR, found that the applicant no longer intended to pursue the application. Without any exceptional circumstances warranting further examination, the case was struck from the list. This decision is important because it highlights the procedural requirement for active participation from applicants. The Court’s ability to dismiss cases for non-engagement ensures efficient use of resources and upholds the importance of applicants fulfilling their responsibilities in pursuing human rights claims. 

Di Nardo and Alberti v. Italy

The ECtHR issued the ruling on 10 October 2024 in the case of Di Nardo and Alberti v. Italy, which defines the limits of Article 8 ECHR in employment-related disputes. The applicants were excluded from the police (Polizia di Stato) selection process because they had visible tattoos (although in the process of being removed). They argued that the exclusion violated their right to private life. The ECtHR ruled that Article 8 did not apply. The ECtHR found that the applicants were aware of the eligibility rules and did not challenge them. Their exclusion was based on their failure to meet these requirements, not on an interference with their private life. Additionally, the applicants failed to prove that the exclusion seriously impacted their personal lives. After being provisionally admitted to the procedure, they accepted the possibility of exclusion. This ruling is significant as it confirms that professional eligibility rules do not automatically raise issues under Article 8 ECHR. However the ECtHR emphasised the importance of transparent and predictable selection criteria in public sector employment, hence setting a high standard for claims based on private life.

Longo v. Italy

The ECtHR ruled on 10 October 2024 in the case Longo v. Italy, in which the applicant alleged violations of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR due to restrictions on visitation rights, loss of contact with his son, and excessive judicial delays. After failed settlement negotiations, the Italian Government submitted a unilateral declaration admitting the violations and offering EUR 9,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 2,000 for costs. It requested the ECtHR to strike the case from its list under Article 37 § 1(c). The Court deemed the compensation reasonable and concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances requiring further examination. However, it noted that if the Government failed to comply, the case could be reinstated under Article 37 § 2. This case highlights concerns about systemic issues in Italy’s approach to parental rights and judicial delays.

Gallico v. Italy and Gullotti v. Italy

The cases Gallico v. Italy and Gullotti v. Italy, both decided by the ECtHR on 14 November 2024, concerned delays in receiving correspondence while in prison, raising issues under Article 8 of the ECHR. In both cases, the Italian government admitted the violations and submitted unilateral declarations, offering compensation of EUR 800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for legal costs in Gallico v. Italy, and EUR 1,300 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for legal expenses in Gullotti v. Italy. Despite the applicants’ lack of response, the ECtHR deemed the proposed amounts consistent with previous cases and removed both applications from its list.

The De Candia, Gallico and Gullotti cases illustrate a broader pattern adopted by Italy, where human rights complaints are frequently resolved through unilateral declarations. While this practice ensures individual compensations, it restricts the ECtHR’s role in establishing legal precedents. This may have a negative impact, namely on matters that display systemic issues, like prison conditions and access to effective remedies.

Franceschetti v. Italy

The ECtHR issued its decision on 21 November 2024 in the case Franceschetti v. Italy, in which the applicant argued that the national courts violated his right to respect for family life under Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR by awarding sole custody of his child to the mother, thereby discriminating against him as a father. The Italian courts based their decision on the child's best interests, emphasizing stability and well-being, particularly given the child's age and the distance between the parents’ homes. The domestic courts had carefully considered the circumstances of shared custody, the father's work schedule, and the child's well-being before deciding to place the child with the mother. The ECtHR found that the national authorities acted within their margin of appreciation, providing sufficient justification for the decision. The applicant’s claim was deemed manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. A dissenting opinion focuses on the presumption in Italian law that school-aged children should generally reside with their mother unless exceptional circumstances arise. While the Court’s decision was not inherently discriminatory, it raised concerns about the equal treatment of fathers in custody disputes. The decision reflects a broader issue in Italy concerning potential bias towards mothers in family law and highlights the need for a more individualized approach to custody that adequately considers the equal involvement of both parents. This case highlights the ongoing challenge of ensuring that decisions are based on the child’s best interests without reinforcing traditional gender roles.

Casarini v. Italy

On 28 November 2024, the ECtHR ruled on the case Casarini v. Italy. Between 2008 and 2009, an officer of the Italian Revenue Police (Guardia di Finanza) unlawfully accessed the applicant's tax data, as well as those of hundreds of other people, from the Taxpayer Information Service database. The data was provided to a journalist working at an Italian magazine. The appellant learned of the incident from a newspaper article, which stated that the journalist exploited the unlawfully obtained data to write articles about the persons involved. The Guardia di Finanza reported the incident in 2010, and in March 2011, the official was sentenced to a suspended two-year prison term, while the journalist received a one-year suspended sentence. The applicant argued before the ECtHR that the Italian State was responsible for failing to adequately protect his personal data, thereby violating Article 8 of the ECHR.

The ECtHR confirmed that certain information in the Taxpayer Information Service database—such as name, date of birth, address, income, and assets—was privacy-related and therefore protected under Article 8 of the ECHR. It held that the applicant could legitimately claim to be a victim of the State's failure to protect his personal data from the Revenue Police officer’s abusive access but not from the journalist's further exploitation of the data. The Court, however, upheld the State's objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, as the plaintiff should first have filed a complaint with the Italian Privacy Authority. The case was, therefore, unanimously declared inadmissible under Article 35 of the ECHR.

A.C. and Others v. Italy

The ECtHR ruled on the case A.C. and Others v. Italy on 12 December 2024. The applicants filed a complaint before the ECtHR under Article 8 of the ECHR. The Italian government acknowledged the violation and offered an amicable settlement, proposing compensation of EUR 10,000 for moral damages and EUR 1,000 for legal fees. The Court considered the settlement in line with the ECHR standards, and as a result, the case was removed from the Court’s list.

Grande Oriente D’Italia v. Italy

The ECtHR declared its verdict on the case Grande Oriente D’Italia v. Italy on 19 December 2024. The case focused on whether the applicant association's rights under Articles 8, 11, and 13 of the ECHR were violated by a parliamentary inquiry commission's search at its premises, leading to a breach of personal data of approximately 6,000 affiliates. The association was a Masonic lodge, and the search at its headquarters was part of an investigation into Mafia involvement in the lodge’s activities. Among the seized documents were papers and digital files, including a list of member names and personal data.

The applicant asserted that the search and seizure of the so-called list did not comply with the law. In its assessment, the ECtHR considered whether there was an encroachment on the rights protected by Article 8 of the ECHR, the character of the encroachment, and, accordingly, whether the encroachment was substantiated.

The Court stated that the contested course of action was neither “necessary in a democratic society” nor “in accordance with the law”, referring to the exceptions under Article 8.2. On that basis, the Court determined insufficient evidence regarding the association's involvement in the matter under investigation. It also noted that the scope of the parliamentary commission's inquiry was excessively broad and extensive, and the means for the applicant to challenge the controversial measure in the domestic legal system before an impartial and independent body were insufficient.

Moreover, the applicant claimed that their rights to freedom of association protected under Article 11 and to an effective remedy set out under Article 13 of the ECHR had been violated. The Court held that claims made outside the scope of the main question concerning Article 8 were not essential to the case. The State was found to compensate for non-pecuniary damage of EUR 9,600 as well as for incurred costs and expenses of EUR 5,344 to the applicant, in addition to any chargeable tax.