Raimondo v Italy [1994] ECHR3, 12954/87, (1994) 18 EHRR237

The Applicant’s complaints were dismissed. The Court held that the seizure procedure was not comparable to a criminal sanction because it was designed to prevent the commission of offences. It follows that the proceedings concerning the supervision did not involve the determination of a criminal charge, and article 6 did not apply. The Court found that the seizure was provided for under Section 2 of the 1965 Act and did not purport to deprive the Applicant of his possessions but only to prevent him from using them. The seizure, therefore, a provisional measure intended to ensure that the property which appeared to be fruit of unlawful activities carried out to the detriment of the community could subsequently be confiscated, if necessary, was justified by the general interest. The court observed that in view of the extremely dangerous economic power of an organization like the Mafia, it could not be said that taking the step of seizing the property at an early stage 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 However, the confiscation order was rescindable and had in fact been rescinded.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 seizure, and therefore the Respondent state was held not to have overstepped the margin of appreciation available to it. In a nutshell, it was the court’s holding that no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been established either in respect of the seizure and confiscation of the Applicant’s property up to 31 December 1986 or in respect of the damage occasioned by those measures. Confiscation, which is designed to block the movement of suspect capital, is an effective and necessary weapon in the combat against organized crime. Thus, the preventive purposes of confiscation justify its application and is proportionate to the aim pursued.