ECHR Recognized Confiscation as Disproportionate When It Forces One Accomplice to Account for the Entire Criminal Proceeds of the Group

The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Petrignani and Others v. Italy dated May 28, 2026, examined the issue of confiscation of accomplices' property based on the principle of joint liability and concluded that such practice may violate Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The case concerned three applicants against whom Italian courts applied so-called equivalent confiscation. The national courts applied the principle of joint liability without properly assessing whether the scope of confiscation corresponded to the actual share of benefit and individual responsibility of each accomplice.

The first applicant, an accountant, received 12 thousand euros for his participation in the tax scheme, but the court allowed confiscation of his assets amounting to over 5 million euros — the total tax revenue estimated by the investigation to have been obtained by all accomplices.

The second applicant in a fraud case actually received about 27 thousand euros, but more than 44 thousand euros were confiscated from him.

The third applicant, a tax consultant, was convicted for participation in a large-scale tax evasion scheme. Although the tax benefit was received by client companies, not by him personally, the courts ordered confiscation of his property amounting to over 36 million euros, citing his key role in creating and implementing the scheme.

ECHR Decision

In considering the complaints, the ECHR recalled that Article 7 of the Convention enshrines the principle of legality of punishment (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege). A person must be able to foresee not only which actions are criminally punishable but also what punishment may be applied to them.

The Court noted that the relevant provisions of Italian legislation did not explicitly provide for the possibility of confiscating the entire criminal proceeds from one accomplice. Moreover, for many years, there were conflicting approaches in national judicial practice: some courts supported the principle of joint liability, while others believed that confiscation should be limited to the share of income actually received by the specific person.

The ECHR emphasized that such inconsistency lasted almost twenty years and was finally eliminated only by the decision of the United Chambers of the Italian Court of Cassation in 2025, which rejected the principle of joint liability in confiscation and stated that each accomplice should be liable only within the limits of the share of income actually received by them.

In this regard, the Court concluded that the confiscation regarding the third applicant did not have a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis. Therefore, a violation of Article 7 of the Convention was established.

Separately, the Court analyzed the issue of compliance of interference with the applicants' property rights with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The ECHR noted that confiscation of amounts exceeding the applicants' shares in the criminal proceeds was not related either to their actual benefit from the offense or to the severity of their conduct. National courts automatically applied the principle of joint liability and did not verify whether the size of the confiscation corresponded to the role of each accomplice.

The Court also rejected the Italian government's argument that a person after confiscation can bring recourse claims against other accomplices. According to the ECHR, such an approach effectively shifts the state's obligation to recover shares of criminal proceeds from other persons onto the convicted individual. Moreover, there is a risk of insolvency of accomplices, making such a possibility purely theoretical.

The ECHR stressed that confiscation aimed at restoring the property status existing before the commission of the crime should not place a person in a worse financial position than they were in before the offense. Seizure of property beyond the actual benefit received means loss of assets that have no connection to the crime.

Under these circumstances, the Court found that the confiscation applied to the applicants imposed an excessive and disproportionate burden on them and therefore violated their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

In summary, the ECHR unanimously found a violation of Article 7 of the Convention regarding Kurchi, as well as a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention regarding all three applicants.

Thus, the ECHR concluded that automatic application of joint liability in confiscation may violate the Convention if it leads to seizure of property beyond the actual benefit received by the person from the crime or lacks a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis.

Additionally, read in the article from the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" about the ECHR’s position that before detaining a journalist, state authorities must weigh freedom of the press and public order interests.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram page to stay updated on the most important events.