| Applicant name | GRANDE ORIENTE D’ITALIA |
| Applicant type | legal person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | italy |
| Application no. | 29550/17 |
| Date | 19/12/2024 |
| Judges | Ivana Jelić, President, Alena Poláčková, Georgios A. Serghides, Erik Wennerström, Raffaele Sabato, Alain Chablais, Artūrs Kučs |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | No legal basis; Not necessary (national security, public safety and the prevention of crime) |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy; informational privacy |
| Keywords | Quality of law; lack of reasonable suspicion |
| Facts of the case | The applicant association complained that the search of its premises and the seizure of the list of its members, including their names and personal data, was not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention and was grossly disproportionate, since the contested measure had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons, it was extremely broad in its scope, and there were no sufficient procedural safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness. |
| Analysis | The Court considers that the search of the applicant association’s premises and the subsequent seizure of various paper and digital documents, including the list of the association’s members, their names and their personal data, amounted to an interference with the right to respect for its home and correspondence. The lack of evidence or a reasonable suspicion of involvement in the matter being investigated, capable of justifying the measure, its wide and indeterminate content, and the absence of sufficient counterbalancing guarantees, in particular of an independent and impartial review of the contested measure, the Court concludes that the disputed measure was not “in accordance with the law” nor “necessary in a democratic society”. Serghides wrote a party dissenting opinion: I voted in favour of all points of the operative provisions of the judgment except for points 3 and 5. In particular, I disagree that having found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention – and on the ground that the Court has “dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case” – there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 11 (freedom of association) and 13 (effective remedy) of the Convention (point 3 and paragraphs 149 and 150 of the judgment). I also disagree with the dismissal of the remainder of the just satisfaction claim. |
| Other Article violation? | no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention; |
| Damage awarded | Holds, unanimously, (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant association, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts: (i) EUR 9,600 (nine thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 5,344 (five thousand three hundred and forty-four euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant association, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |