The applicant was arrested and placed under house arrest on charges relating to his association with the Mafia. As an interim measure some of his property was seized. The proceedings ended in his acquittal. He claimed that the seizure of his property was a violation of his rights under A1P1.
Held: His complaint was dismissed.The procedure was ‘not comparable to a criminal sanction because it was designed to prevent the commission of offences.’ It followed that the proceedings concerning the supervision did not involve the determination of a criminal charge, and article 6 did not apply. The seizure, as a provisional measure intended to ensure that property which appeared to be the fruit of unlawful activities carried out to the detriment of the community could subsequently be confiscated if necessary, was justified by the general interest. In view of the extremely dangerous economic power of an organisation like the Mafia, it could not be said that taking the step of seizing the property at an early stage of the proceedings was disproportionate to the aim pursued. There was an additional complaint that the property was not only seized but confiscated. However, the confiscation order was rescindable and had in fact been rescinded. In practical terms it entailed no additional restriction to the seizure, and therefore the respondent state was held not to have overstepped the margin of appreciation available to it.
 ECHR 3, 12954/87, (1994) 18 EHRR 237
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited – R, Regina (on the Application of) v Durham Constabulary and Another HL 17-Mar-2005
The appellant, a boy aged 15, had been warned as to admitted indecent assaults on girls. He complained that it had not been explained to him that the result would be that his name would be placed on the sex offenders register. The Chief Constable . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Gale and Another v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 26-Oct-2011
Civil recovery orders had been made against the applicant. He had been accused and acquitted of drug trafficking allegations in Europe, but the judge had been persuaded that he had no proper explanation for the accumulation of his wealth, and had . .
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 January 2021; Ref: scu.165291