![undisputed 2 in italiano esiste undisputed 2 in italiano esiste](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlsTaRgV4AAoc_q.jpg)
1, on account of the confiscation of their property. alleged that there had been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the confiscation of its property. S.r.l alleged that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, Article 7 and Article 13 of the Convention, and also of Article 1 of Protocol No. The applicants submitted the following complaints: The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Manes, lawyer practising in Bologna and Mr A.G. Lavitola, lawyer practising in Rome and Mr V. Rotunno, lawyers practising in Bari Mr G. The applicants were represented respectively by Mr G. and Mr Filippo Gironda (“the applicants”), on 21 December 2005, 2 August 2007 and 23 December 2011 respectively.Ģ. (company in administration),Falgest S.r.l. 1828/06, 31) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Italian companies and one Italiannational:G.I.E.M. The case originated in three applications (nos. Having deliberated in private on 7 September 2015, on 23 November 2016, on 5 July 2017 and on 1 February 2018,ĭelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last‑mentioned date:ġ. The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:Īnd Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
![undisputed 2 in italiano esiste undisputed 2 in italiano esiste](https://www.tvserial.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Daydreamer-Le-ali-del-sogno-CAN-YAMAN-interpreta-CAN-DIVIT-qui-nellepisodio-6-Credits-MEDIASET-e-GLOBAL-TELIF-HAKLARI-YAPIMCILIK-TIC.-A.S.jpeg)
1828/06 and 2 others – see appended list)