| Applicant name | CONTRADA |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Italy |
| Application no. | 2507/19 |
| Date | 23/05/2024 |
| Judges | Marko Bošnjak , president , Alena Polackova, Latif Huseynov, Peter Paczolay, Gilberto Felici, Erik Wennerstrom, Raffaele Sabato |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Procedural requirements |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Surveillance |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complains about the interception of his telephone conversations, on the one hand, and the search of his home and premises at his disposal, on the other. He considers this to be an unjustified interference with his rights guaranteed by Article 8 and complains about the lack of effective judicial review of the impugned measures. |
| Analysis | As for the house searches, the applicant did not exhaust all domestic remedies. As for the surveillance the Court observes that Article 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides that such data are to be retained under the responsibility of the public prosecutor’s office until the end of the proceedings and are to be destroyed once the final judicial decision has acquired the force of res judicata. However, the same provision allows any interested person, including a person not involved in the proceedings, to request the judge, even before the abovementioned deadline, to destroy the data concerning them, and that in such a case, the judge shall rule on the request following a hearing in chambers and after hearing the parties. The Court notes that this provision does indeed offer persons who are not directly involved in the proceedings an opportunity to apply to the court in order to protect the confidentiality of their communications. The fact remains that, according to the wording of the article, the only condition for obtaining the destruction of data is that they are considered unnecessary for the continuation of the proceedings. The Court considers that the Government have not proven that there were effective and accessible remedies available to the applicant enabling him to raise his complaints of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | Not necessary 6 and 13 |
| Damage awarded | Said , unanimously, a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage ; b) that from the expiry of the said period and until payment, this amount will be increased by simple interest at a rate equal to that of the marginal lending facility of the European Central Bank applicable during this period, increased by three percentage points ; |
| Documents | Judgment |