## Facts

- FIAT entered a July 2002 convertible-loan transaction that could dilute existing controlling shareholders if FIAT did not repay within three years.
- Senior figures associated with the FIAT group and related entities developed measures intended to protect controlling shareholders from dilution.
- Italy’s financial regulator (CONSOB) opened administrative proceedings alleging dissemination of misleading information and omission of required price-sensitive disclosures connected to the FIAT operation.
- CONSOB imposed large monetary penalties and ancillary disqualifications barring certain individuals, for fixed periods, from serving as directors or officers of listed companies and from acting as financial advisers.
- The applicants contested the sanctions in domestic courts, arguing the process was criminal in substance, lacked an independent and impartial tribunal, and imposed disproportionate penalties.
- In parallel, prosecutors brought criminal proceedings for market manipulation based on facts essentially corresponding to those underlying the CONSOB sanctions.
- The applicants alleged they were subjected to duplicative punitive proceedings and sanctions for the same conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the CONSOB proceedings and sanctions constituted a “criminal charge” for purposes of Article 6 of the Convention.
2. Whether the applicants received a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, including whether later judicial review cured defects in the regulator-led process (Article 6).
3. Whether imposing punitive CONSOB sanctions and then pursuing criminal proceedings for substantially the same facts breached the prohibition on being tried or punished twice (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7).
4. Whether the fines and disqualifications unjustifiably interfered with the applicants’ possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

## Decision

- The court held the CONSOB sanctions were “criminal” in Convention terms, despite their administrative label under domestic law.
- The court found a violation of Article 6 where the determination was made by a body lacking the guarantees of an independent and impartial tribunal and later judicial review did not provide review of sufficient scope to remedy that defect.
- The court found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 because the administrative sanctions (criminal in substance) and the criminal prosecution concerned substantially the same facts and were not treated as a single, coordinated response.
- The court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concluding the cumulative and severe penalties, combined with deficient procedural safeguards, upset the required balance between the public interest and property rights.

## Legal Principles

- For Convention purposes, sanctions formally classified as administrative may be “criminal” when the rule protects the public at large, the measures are punitive and deterrent, and the penalties are severe (including large fines and professional disqualifications).
- If an initial decision-maker is not an independent and impartial tribunal, Article 6 requires subsequent judicial control capable of examining the matter with sufficiently broad review to correct defects; limited review may be inadequate.
- Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 bars a second set of criminal proceedings after a final determination in criminal matters, where the later case concerns the same or substantially the same material facts, even if domestic legal characterizations differ.
- Parallel administrative and criminal enforcement may violate *ne bis in idem* when the tracks both have punitive character and are not sufficiently connected in substance and time.
- Severe financial penalties and disqualifications can constitute an interference with possessions; procedural defects and cumulative burdens can render the interference disproportionate.

## Conclusion

The judgment treated severe securities-regulator penalties as criminal in substance, required robust tribunal guarantees or later review adequate to cure administrative-bodily defects, and held that duplicative punitive administrative sanctions and criminal prosecution for the same market-manipulation facts violated both fair-trial rights and the Convention’s double-jeopardy protection.


Grande Stevens v. Italy, Apps. Nos. 18640/10, 18647/10, 18663/10, 18668/10 & 18698/10 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 4, 2014)