ECHR – Application to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

TRUESTORY V. ITALIAN STATE

APPLICATION TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF MARCH 17, 2026 – TRUESTORY v. THE ITALIAN STATE

PUBLIC VERSION DATED JULY 8, 2026

In this version, the municipality of residence is referred to under the pseudonym of Sammartino, the provincial capital is designated as Tiberi, while Fenili* and Concanesia* represent other neighboring municipalities. Only specific sections have been omitted and marked as [OMITTED]..

Click Here for the Italian version.

Below is the receipt of the international registered mail used to submit the Application.The application, spanning 201 pages, consists of: the Application Form, a 20-page Explanatory Memorandum, and Appendices. The original language of the proceedings is Italian. The application was received in Strasbourg on March 25, 2026.

Ricevuta della raccomandata internazionale inviata a Strasburgo

APPLICATION FORM SECTION E: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS (Summary)

1. ORIGIN OF THE DISPUTE AND DENIAL OF JUSTICE (2004-2005)

The applicant, a software developer, was subjected to severe acts of harassment and the violent dispossession of corporate assets by third parties in [omitted...]. To escape the threats and protect his family's safety, he relocated his domicile and business operations. Between November 2004 and April 2005, the applicant submitted 7 formal complaints/addenda to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome (R1-R7), requesting protection and reporting a breach of domicile. He also personally filed 2 evidentiary dossiers. The complaints (from R2 to R6) and the filed dossiers were intentionally and maliciously misappropriated inside the Courthouse prior to assignment. On 4 October 2005, the Public Prosecutor requested the dismissal of complaint R7 alone, based on the factually false assumption that "the previous complaints were never received" [APP. 2, pp. 55-56]. This assertion was thoroughly refuted by documentary evidence: on 30 June 2005, the Military Prosecutor's Office had forwarded the entire file to the Ordinary Prosecutor's Office via insured mail, which was regularly registered upon receipt [APP. 3, p. 60]. On 4 April 2006, the Public Prosecutor rejected the motion to reopen the investigation, reaffirming in writing the false claim regarding the non-receipt of the documents [APP. 3, p. 64]. The concealment of these legal documents precluded criminal prosecution, resulting in the destruction of the company and the foreclosure and loss of the applicant's home in [omitted...].

2. THE PROSECUTORS' OFFICE SHORT-CIRCUIT AND FAILURE TO PROTECT (2006-2009) Deprived of all financial means, the applicant turned to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Naples (2006) to report the Roman magistrates. For jurisdictional reasons, the case file was transferred to Perugia. The Public Prosecutor of Perugia refused any consultation and delegated the investigations to the very same Judicial Police of Rome (who were themselves the subject of the investigation). The applicant's request for personal protection was absurdly delegated by Perugia to the Carabinieri Barracks of Este [APP. 4, p. 75], meaning to the exact same military personnel already formally reported by the applicant for forgery of public documents and threats (events of March 2005). The protection measure was never implemented. The Prosecutor's Offices of Perugia and Florence (the latter approached as an oversight body) closed the case files by adopting the practice of "deaf dismissal" (archiviazione sorda): no notice of the decision was ever served to the applicant, thereby precluding his right to file an objection and rendering domestic remedies illusory. This systemic practice of absolute institutional silence affected every subsequent request for assistance: the complaint filed in Pescara (2008), the stalking report (2009), and the one against the omissions of the Mayor of [omitted...] (2013). The State weaponized the applicant's unregistered address status in [omitted...] (which was due to safety reasons well known to the Prosecutors) to omit the service of dismissal notices, despite demonstrating an ability to trace the applicant whenever it deemed necessary (e.g., a notice served through the Police in Terni in 2007). This intentional omission precluded any possibility of filing an objection.

3. THE POLICE RAID AND THE MANDATORY EXPULSION ORDER (2010) The applicant and his spouse had found shelter in Fenili*, where they had been lawfully residing for nearly a year in a room granted for their use by the local parish priest. On 04 August 2010, after midnight, the State Police carried out a violent raid. Without any judicial eviction proceedings, officers broke in by forcing open the window shutters. The applicant was forcibly seized, handcuffed, led out into the street barefoot, and deprived of his original evidentiary documents [APP. 12, p. 128]. Under the pretext of charging him with "resistance to a public official," the State appointed a public defender but deliberately failed to notify the attorney, thereby nullifying the right to a legal defense during detention. On August 2010, the Police Headquarters (Questura) of Tiberi* issued a Mandatory Expulsion Order (Foglio di Via Obbligatorio) based on an unverified assessment of "social dangerousness," ordering his forced return to Baone. This act amounted to an inhumane sentence: it forced the applicant, by then stripped of all assets, to return to the hands of his harassing family members and the local Carabinieri Command, whom he had already formally reported for forgery and abuse.

4. CIVIL DEATH AND LIFE IN THE OPEN AIR (2010-2018) On 05 August 2010, exactly 24 hours after the issuance of the Expulsion Order, the Municipality of Baone removed the applicant from the civil registry due to untraceability, without any prior notice [APP. 14, p. 173]. The applicant was condemned to "civil death": lacking a registered address, unable to renew his identity documents (which were stolen in 2014), deprived of healthcare, and excluded from the labor market. Local institutions and social services conditioned any form of assistance upon holding a registered residence, creating an insurmountable paradox. The applicant was forced to live on the streets, unsheltered, for four consecutive years. This extreme destitution, induced by the State, caused devastating and irreversible biological damage, clinically certified only years later: total loss of teeth due to severe periodontitis caused by forced neglect, an incarcerated epigastric hernia, a cervical disco-osteophytic bar resulting from postural trauma, and severe hypertension [APP. 15, pp. 176-183]. To this was added a systematic institutional "pathologization," which culminated in an incorrect and damaging psychiatric diagnosis inserted without his knowledge into an Emergency Room report dated 4 July 2019, for which the applicant had to demand a manual correction by the Chief Physician [APP. 17, pp. 200-201].

5. RECOVERY OF IDENTITY AND CONTINUING SITUATION (2018-2026) Only at the end of 2017, thanks to the round-the-clock employment of his spouse, did the applicant obtain a fictitious registered address and reacquire his identity documents. However, the physical damage, the social stigma (defamation entered into institutional databases), and the twenty-year employment gap made reintegration impossible. The State's failure to comply with its protection obligations constitutes a continuing and ongoing situation. On 15 January 2026, the applicant's family members, exploiting the vulnerability induced by these circumstances, renewed their harassment at his domicile for financial purposes. On 2 February 2026, the applicant filed a formal complaint for stalking (Art. 612-bis of the Italian Criminal Code), requesting an official warning (ammonimento) from the Police Commissioner (Questore) [APP. 15, pp. 184-191]. In the face of the persistent inertia of the institutions in guaranteeing safety and the rule of law, the applicant applies to this Court.

SECTION F: STATEMENT OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION AND OF THE PROTOCOLS

ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY) The Italian State has violated the right of access to a court by arbitrarily precluding any form of defense. This malicious interference materialized through the misappropriation of case files at the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome [APP. 2] and the forgery of public documents ("documents not received") stamped on the dismissal records [APP. 2, p. 55 and APP. 3, p. 64]. The institutional short-circuit was further aggravated by delegating investigations to the very same individuals who had been reported (Public Prosecutor's Office of [omitted...]) [APP. 4, p. 75]. Finally, the practice of "deaf dismissal" (archiviazione sorda) was knowingly applied by ignoring the direct contact information (fax, email, and physical domicile in Terni) unequivocally provided by the applicant in his complaints and proven by the attached press clippings [APP. 6]. By exploiting his fictitious unregistered address status and the destitution that prevented him from appointing legal counsel, the State deprived the applicant of the statutory time limits to file an objection, rendering domestic remedies entirely inaccessible and illusory [APP. 7, p. 100].

ARTICLE 8 (RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE AND REPUTATION) Violation under a dual aspect (negative and positive obligations). Negative obligation: the night raid into the lawful residence without a warrant (August 2010), the issuance of the Mandatory Expulsion Order, and the concurrent removal from the civil registry due to untraceability [APP. 14, p. 173] constitute State interferences that lacked proportionality. These acts condemned the applicant to "civil death" for eight years, stripping him of his legal identity, his registered residence, and his right to a reputation. Positive obligation: the State failed to protect the applicant's private life and home from the prior offenses of stalking (2004) and continues to fail to provide protection against recent domestic intrusions, as proven by the formal complaint filed on 02 February 2026 [APP. 15, pp. 184-191], which remains unaddressed (continuing violation). The intentional entering of deliberately false data into institutional databases [APP. 17, pp. 200-201] has violated the applicant's social identity.

ARTICLE 3 (PROHIBITION OF INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT) The State actively forced the applicant into a state of extreme destitution. The Mandatory Expulsion Order, which acted as a psychological and physical trap, and the denial of a registered residence, combined with the insurmountable bureaucratic obstructionism of Social Services, forced the applicant to live unsheltered on the streets for four years. This degrading treatment, for which the State bears direct responsibility, exceeded the minimum threshold of severity required under Article 3, destroying human dignity and causing devastating, documented, and irreversible biological damage (total loss of teeth due to forced neglect, chronic spinal pathologies, and metabolic dysfunctions) [APP. 15, pp. 176-183].

ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 (PROTECTION OF PROPERTY) There is a manifest violation of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions due to the failure of the Judicial Authorities to comply with their positive obligations of protection. The cover-up of the initial complaints (2004-2005) and the absolute investigative inertia regarding the corporate asset stripping suffered by the applicant prevented him from protecting his software assets. This denial of justice caused the economic collapse of the family unit and triggered, as a direct and inescapable consequence, the foreclosure and judicial auction of their only safe-haven asset (their home located in the Municipality of Baone).

CONCLUSIONS AND SUBMISSIONS In light of the foregoing, the applicant requests that the Honorable Court: find and declare that the Italian State, through the actions and omissions of its organs, has violated Articles 3, 6, 8, and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

SECTION G: COMPLIANCE WITH ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIA

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 – EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES: Innumerable complaints were lodged ([omitted...], [omitted...], [omitted...], [omitted...], [omitted...]). The remedies were rendered ineffective and inaccessible by the State through the malicious misappropriation of legal files ([omitted...]), the delegation of investigations to the very individuals who had been reported ([omitted...]) [APP. 4, pp. 74-75], and "deaf dismissals" (archiviazioni sorde) without formal notice [APP. 7, p. 100], which physically and materially precluded any possibility of filing an objection.

Four-month time-limit: Exempt from the exhaustion requirement due to the established ineffectiveness of domestic remedies (Akdivar and Others v. Turkey).

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8, ARTICLE 3, AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 – CONTINUING SITUATION: The violations (loss of legal identity, denial of justice, lack of protection) do not constitute isolated acts, but rather a persistent and ongoing omission by the State, active from 2004 to the present day. This is evidenced by the recent siege at his domicile (January 2026) and the formal complaint lodged on 2 February 2026 [APP. 15, pp. 184-191], regarding which the State remains entirely inert. Consequently, the four-month time-limit continuously starts afresh.

OBJECTIVE IMPEDIMENT: Concurrently, the time-limit cannot be considered to have expired due to the applicant's state of "civil death" (removal from the civil registry from 2010 to 2018) [APP. 14, p. 173], forced destitution (living unsheltered on the streets), the disabling chronic pathologies suffered [APP. 15, pp. 176-183], and the demonstrated impossibility of securing legal assistance due to a well-founded fear of institutional retaliation.

LIST OF APPENDICES (INDEX OF EVIDENCE)

Appendix 1 – Application Form: Page 1
Appendix 2 – Dismissal Records and Evidence of Misappropriated Case Files (Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome): Page 55
Appendix 3 – Transmittal Records from the Military Prosecutor's Office and Rejection of the Motion to Reopen Investigations: Page 60
Appendix 4 – Delegation of Investigations to the Reported Parties and Carabinieri Barracks of Este Records: Page 74
Appendix 5 – [OMITTED] / [OMISSIS]: Page 80
Appendix 6 – Attached Press Clippings and Documentation of Direct Contact Information (Fax/Email/Domicile): Page 85
Appendix 7 – Evidence of "Deaf Dismissals" (Archiviazioni Sorde) and Lack of Formal Notification: Page 100
Appendix 8 – [OMITTED] / [OMISSIS]: Page 110
Appendix 9 – [OMITTED] / [OMISSIS]: Page 115
Appendix 10 – [OMITTED] / [OMISSIS]: Page 120
Appendix 11 – [OMITTED] / [OMISSIS]: Page 125
Appendix 12 – Documentation and Evidence Regarding the Police Night Raid and Forced Seizure: Page 128
Appendix 13 – Mandatory Expulsion Order (Foglio di Via Obbligatorio) Issued by the Police Headquarters of Tiberi*: Page 140
Appendix 14 – Official Records of Removal from the Civil Registry Due to Untraceability (Municipality of Baone): Page 173
Appendix 15 – Clinical Certifications of Irreversible Biological Damage and Formal Stalking Complaint Dated 02/02/2026: Page 176
Appendix 16 – [OMITTED] / [OMISSIS]: Page 192
Appendix 17 – Emergency Room Report Dated 04/07/2019 and Manual Rectification Signed by the Chief Physician: Page 200

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 47 § 2 (b) OF THE RULES OF COURT.

SECTION 1: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. This memorandum complements and expands upon the information provided in the application form.

PART I: Origin of the Dispute and Sabotage of Access to Justice (2001-2005)

2. The applicant and his spouse, operating through the company [omitted...] S.r.l., were engaged in the development of the software [omitted...]. Severe breaches of contract by partner companies culminated in actions aimed at destroying the corporate structure and unlawfully expropriating the software, compelling the applicant to seek protection from the State.

3. In the year 2001, in order to escape a family environment of origin characterized by severely toxic dynamics and harassing behavior, the applicant relocated his residence and the company headquarters to a partial sublease, severing all ties with his relatives to ensure his personal safety.

4. On 4 June 2003, the family unit consolidated its assets by acquiring a home, encumbered by a mortgage and registered in the spouse's name. This property represented the applicant's sole safe-haven asset, the subsequent loss of which is a direct consequence of the denial of justice by the State.

5. On [omitted...] March 2004, the applicant and his spouse entered into marriage, obtaining a dispensation from the publication of banns from the Curia for "grave reasons" in order to maintain maximum confidentiality regarding family members.

6. During the course of 2004, the conduct of a business partner took on a violent and harassing nature toward the applicant and his spouse.

7. On 8 September 2004, the applicant's family members carried out an intrusion at the company headquarters, involving the sublessees of the property. This event triggered severe tensions with the latter, who explicitly threatened the applicant with stalking in order to obtain his private address.

8. In this regard, it must be reiterated that repeated thefts occurred at the headquarters of the sublessee company. During an episode in flagrante delicto, the spouse identified the escape vehicle as a "station wagon"; however, the Commander of the Carabinieri forced the wording "van" into the official report. The climate of tension degenerated, and the awareness of such opaque conduct gave rise to a well-founded fear for safety. Consequently, in order to prevent potential retaliation and ensure personal safety, the business operations were relocated to their private domicile, limiting access to the offices solely to nighttime hours for the indispensable retrieval of documentation.

9. On 3 November 2004, having noted the impossibility of obtaining protection within the local jurisdiction, the applicant forwarded his first 18-page complaint (R1) to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome and to the [omitted...]. The act formally invoked privacy protection and the intervention of a third-party judicial authority as a guarantor of personal and asset safety [APP. 2, p. 37]. On 30 December 2004, the applicant transmitted an addendum (R2) to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome and to the [omitted...], containing further evidence of the unlawful conduct suffered within the corporate sphere [APP. 2, p. 39-40].

10. On 20 February 2005, upon accessing the registered office, the applicant noticed—via visual inspection through the external ground-floor windows—that the lock had been replaced and the alarm system deactivated, constituting a violent dispossession of property. From the same external position, the tampering of a parcel containing confidential documentation (bank details, medical records, and data relating to the applicant's residence) was clearly visible. The specific selection of these documents appeared prearranged to identify the applicants' private domicile, with the manifest risk of extending the harassing conduct to the family sphere. Given the prior and documented partiality of the local Carabinieri Command, the applicant filed a specific motion with the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome [APP. 2, p. 43]. This initiative was necessary to submit the entire chronology of facts to a third-party authority, in order to guarantee protected access to the premises and ensure the correct criminal characterization of the facts, preventing them from being downgraded to a mere private dispute.

11. On 5 March 2005, upon accessing the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome, the applicant encountered severe procedural inertia: the addenda R2 and R3 were missing from the protocol registries, despite the gravity of the reported facts and the time that had elapsed since the submission of R2. This lack of documentation constituted the first sign of a systematic disappearance of legal files that would subsequently affect the entire body of evidence (later extended to notes R4, R5, and R6). The applicant learned with dismay that the main complaint (R1) had been transferred for jurisdictional competence to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Padua. This determination appears entirely incongruous and dangerous: in document R1, the applicant and his spouse had explicitly reported issues involving the law enforcement authorities [omitted...].

12. On 10 March 2005, the applicant sent registered letter R4, formally reporting the disappearance of the case files and re-attaching the entire evidentiary documentation in order to remedy the information "black hole" created by the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome, which effectively prevented any legal action against the expropriation of the company [APP. 2, p. 44].

13. On 15 March 2005, an agent of a client discovered the applicant's residential address, showing up outside his home in a patently intimidating manner. Faced with this breach of the family's security perimeter, the applicant promptly notified the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome by sending registered letter R5 on 19 March 2005, urging an intervention to protect his personal safety [APP. 2, pp. 46, 47].

14. On 25 March 2005, following an accidental electrocution, the applicant suffered a traumatic shock at his home. The intervention of the Carabinieri was not followed by the requested medical assistance; the authority reconstructed the event as "intra-family conflict," isolating it from the criminal context previously reported and depriving the applicant of any protection and assistance [APP. 5, p. 80].

15. On 26 March 2005, personnel from the Carabinieri Corps arrived at the applicant's domicile, urging him to sign an official summary information report containing factually false information (falso ideologico). The document deliberately omitted the root cause of the state of shock (the accidental electrocution) and the harassing context already reported, executing a partial and distorted reconstruction of reality. Faced with the applicant's legitimate refusal to endorse an untruthful document, the officers uttered explicit threats, raising the prospect of severe retaliation and prejudice regarding the applicant's future procedural standing [APP. 5, p. 81].

16. Between 30 and 31 March 2005, local press outlets published distorted news about the incident, based exclusively on press releases (veline) provided by the Carabinieri. The press carried out a systematic omission of both the root cause (see § 14) and the harassing context linked to the misappropriation of files in Rome (see § 11), materializing a maneuver of social delegitimization against the applicant.

17. On 13 April 2005, the applicant went to the Carabinieri Barracks of Este, where Marshal P.P. served complaints for threats and criminal damage filed by neighbors. On that occasion, a public defender from the Bar of Padua was appointed. Despite the applicant's urging, the Judicial Police authority categorically refused to accept a counter-complaint or the report concerning the misappropriation of files that had occurred in Rome, precluding the exercise of the right to a defense (Article 6) [APP. 5, p. 81].

18. On 15 April 2005, the applicant transmitted via registered mail (R6) a further addendum to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome, sent from the post office of Chiari (BS), where he had temporarily taken refuge in an attempt to escape the growing hostility of the local authorities [omitted...] [APP. 2, pp. 49, 50].

19. On 19 April 2005, a second personal access by the applicant to the offices of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome confirmed the gravity of the procedural anomalies previously encountered. Despite cross-searches carried out by the registry staff—based both on the tracking numbers of the registered letters and the names of the parties—it emerged that only the initial complaint R1 was regularly registered in the system. Regarding the subsequent supplementary notes (from R2 to R6), although they had been correctly delivered to and acquired by the post office inside the Prosecutor's Office, a total lack of digital traceability and the untraceability of the physical paper files were established. This circumstance highlighted a repeated and unjustified disappearance of judicial documents, functional to depriving the applicant of any documentary protection.

20. On 19 April 2005, in order to neutralize the systematic sabotage of postal correspondence, the applicant physically deposited a certified copy of the entire evidentiary package sent up to that point at the First Acts Office (Ufficio Primi Atti) of the Public Prosecutor's Office of [omitted...]. These deposits were registered under protocol numbers 76074 (D1, 88 pages) and 76078 (D2, 52 pages) [APP. 2, pp. 51-52]. These documents, fundamental to proving the asset stripping of the company and the breach of domicile, would also subsequently be removed from the investigation file.

21. On 26 April 2005, during an interview with social services, the applicant learned that Marshal P.P. of the Este Carabinieri had already characterized him on 26 March 2005 as a dangerous paranoid individual [APP. 5, p. 81], even before having ever met him. This conduct, based on a manifest prejudice, was aimed at nullifying the applicant's credibility as an injured party, isolating him and pre-establishing a justification for the subsequent investigative inertia.

22. On 5 May 2005, the applicant implemented an "informational self-defense" maneuver by sending a seventh complaint (R7) of 11 pages to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome, deliberately omitting his name from the sender field to evade internal interception. The strategy was successful: the registered letter was regularly registered and assigned to the Public Prosecutor [omitted...], but strictly limited to the facts described in that final 11-page note, continuing to ignore the previous substantive filings [APP. 2, p. 53].

23. On 2 June 2005, in the face of the established and persistent absence of protection from the competent institutions and the imminent risk to their physical safety, the applicants found themselves forced to execute a compulsory departure from the Veneto region. This de facto exile resulted in the definitive loss of the availability of their home and of any remaining corporate assets.

24. On 18 June 2005, in the face of total institutional isolation and the manifest inertia of the ordinary judiciary, the applicant formalized a specific complaint with the Military Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of [omitted...] [APP. 3, p. 58]. On 30 June 2005, the Military Prosecutor's Office forwarded the entire evidentiary file (file no. 160/c/05) to the Ordinary Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome via insured mail [APP. 3, pp. 60-61]. Although the document was digitally and physically present within the offices of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome, the State failed to notify the applicant of its receipt, keeping him in a state of informational isolation.

25. On 27 September 2005, the Public Prosecutor at the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome docketed strictly and solely complaint R7. Barely seven days later, on 4 October 2005, the same magistrate formulated a request for dismissal [APP. 2, pp. 55, 56], basing it on the factually false premise that "the previous complaints were never received." This assertion deliberately ignored both the manual deposits (D1, D2) and the file transferred by the Military Prosecutor's Office, which had already been acquired into the office's records more than three months prior.

26. The conduct of the investigating authority constituted a procedural paradox: a case file was opened strictly and solely regarding the breach of correspondence (pursuant to Article 616 of the Italian Criminal Code), while systematically failing to review the very documents that had been misappropriated, even though they were already in the possession of the magistrate. This maneuver precluded any examination on the merits of the reported offenses, effectively hollowed out the right of access to justice (Article 6 of the ECHR).

27. Only on 9 November 2005, the request for dismissal was served on the applicant via fax [APP. 2, pp. 55, 56]. At that juncture, the applicants were in a state of extreme destitution and housing deprivation, finding precarious shelter in a camping tent within the province of Brescia. The imposition of a peremptory time-limit of just ten days to file an objection, concurrently with an absolute lack of financial means and the logistical isolation induced by the authorities' omissions, transformed the option of a domestic remedy into a purely theoretical and illusory burden. This condition precluded the exercise of the right to a defense, constituting a violation of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the ECHR) taken in conjunction with the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR).

PART II: Documentary Evidence of Intentional Malfeasance and Collapse of the Defense System

28. It was only on 22 March 2006 that the applicant, by going directly to the offices of the Military Prosecutor's Office, learned that the Ordinary Prosecutor's Office was also in possession of the Military file: the official, Dr. [omitted...], demonstrated that the case file of 18 June 2005 (No. 160/c/05) had been officially transmitted to the Ordinary Prosecutor's Office on 30 June 2005 via insured mail [APP. 3, pp. 60-61].

29. On the same day, the applicant promptly went to the Ordinary Prosecutor's Office. A clerk from the registry of the Public Prosecutor [omitted...] traced the file on the terminal and confirmed that the case file had become extremely voluminous because it had been regularly integrated by another magistrate (Dr. [omitted...]). This evidence categorically refuted the grounds for the dismissal request of November [APP. 2, pp. 55-56], proving that the documents had been physically present within the offices for nine months.

30. Still on 22 March 2006, the applicant acquired from the Registry the dismissal order issued by the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (GIP) on 3 January 2006. The document confirmed the closure of the case based on the false premise that the complaints had disappeared, completely ignoring the physical presence of the integrated files within the Prosecutor's Office computer system [APP. 3, p. 62].

31. On 31 March 2006, the applicant sent a motion via fax to Public Prosecutor [omitted...] to reopen the investigation and requested clarifications, omitting the fact that he had been to his office but attaching only the dismissal order obtained from the Registry [APP. 3, p. 63].

32. On 4 April 2006, Public Prosecutor [omitted...] replied via fax to the motion of 31 March. Unaware that the applicant had viewed the terminal data and possessed proof of the military transmission, the magistrate wrote in his own hand that the reopening was denied because the "disappeared" complaints "remained unreceived" [APP. 3, p. 64].

33. The handwritten note of 4 April 2006 constitutes evidence of procedural intentional malfeasance (dolo procedurale): the Public Prosecutor lied in an official document despite having physical access to the file since 4 July 2005. This conduct constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 (Right to a Fair Trial), given that the State deliberately precluded access to justice through forgery of public documents (falso ideologico), and rendered the remedy of an appeal to the Court of Cassation (suggested by the Public Prosecutor) a theoretical yet ineffective burden for a citizen reduced to destitution precisely by the failure to protect his corporate assets.

Ecco la traduzione formattata in Markdown per questa terza parte della memoria integrativa, applicando rigorosamente il formato data internazionale esteso (DD Month YYYY) e utilizzando la terminologia legale adatta alla giurisprudenza della CEDU (ad esempio, abuse of office, jurisdictional competence, prior censorship, breach of confidentiality):

PART III: The Chain Reaction of the Prosecutors' Offices and the Short-Circuit of Protection (2006–2009)

34. On 8 September 2006, the applicant personally filed a formal complaint (denuncia-querela, No. 4115/06) at the Public Prosecutor's Office of Naples against the Roman magistrates for the intentional misappropriation of legal documents and omission of official duties (omissione d'ufficio). Given the severity of the facts reported, the case file was processed with urgency and subsequently transferred for reasons of territorial jurisdiction to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Perugia.

35. On 27 September 2006, the proceedings were docketed at the Public Prosecutor's Office of Perugia (No. 8780/06 mod. 21) against person(s) to be identified, regarding offenses under Articles 323 (Abuse of Office) and 490 (Suppression or Destruction of Public Documents) of the Italian Criminal Code, and assigned to Deputy Prosecutor Dr. [omitted...] [APP. 4, p. 69].

36. On 10 October 2006, the applicant requested an urgent meeting via email [APP. 4, p. 68]. On 12 October 2006, Dr. [omitted...] rejected the request via a handwritten note at the bottom of the email, citing a lack of specification of the grounds, even though these were analytically documented in the case file originating from Naples [APP. 4, pp. 68, 69].

37. On 22 November 2006, the applicant learned over the phone from the Public Prosecutor's registry that the investigations had been delegated to the Judicial Police of Rome (the very subject under investigation), constituting a manifest anomaly within the institutional oversight system. Following a suggestion from that same office, the applicant sent a formal "Request for Protection" via fax [APP. 4, p. 70].

38. On 24 November 2006, the applicant transmitted a further fax [APP. 4, p. 72].

39. On 28 November 2006, Dr. Ambra Maria Lavezzari, general head of the registries, had the applicant re-submit the entire file of the complaint and the CD-ROM previously presented in Naples [APP. 4, p. 73].

40. On 19 December 2006, faced with the persistent refusal of a meeting by the Perugia magistrate even after the re-submission of 28 November 2006 [APP. 4, p. 73], the applicant turned to the Carabinieri Company of [omitted...]. On that occasion, an extremely detailed complaint was drafted (a 12-hour deposition), aimed at crystallizing testimonies and evidence before the State-induced destitution rendered remaining in the territory impossible [APP. 5, pp. 77-86]. An evidentiary CD-ROM containing the digital archive of the documents misappropriated in [omitted...] and other records was concurrently placed under seizure [APP. 5, pp. 87-89]. The report was filed in Perugia under proceedings No. 25351/06 mod. 44 and assigned to Dr. Paci. On 27 December 2006, the applicant sent a fax requesting a meeting to Dr. Paci [APP. 5, pp. 90, 91].

41. Having relocated to Terni, during the first months of 2007, following the failure of previous independent attempts to access the local press, a Police Inspector exercised his influence to have the media outlet Corriere dell’Umbria publish an article. The primary goal of this intervention was to urge the social assistance services of the Municipality of Terni to act.

42. On 4 March 2007, the [omitted...] published a front-page investigative report (section [omitted...]) on the applicant’s situation (titled "[omitted...]"), certifying his state of abandonment and the ineffectiveness of the complaints filed in [omitted...] and [omitted...] [APP. 16, p. 193]. This evidence proves that the State was formally aware of the ongoing human rights violation but deliberately omitted to activate protection protocols.

43. On 7 March 2007, the applicant turned to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Florence (acting as an oversight body), reporting the Public Prosecutor's Office of Perugia for violation of the right to a defense and failure to supervise the Roman magistrates [APP. 6, pp. 94-98]. This constituted the activation of an internal hierarchical remedy, which later proved ineffective (Article 13) due to the secret and unnotified nature of the subsequent dismissals.

44. On 13 March 2007, the applicant participated live in the national television broadcast "[omitted...]" on RAI DUE [APP. 16, p. 194]. Immediately prior to the broadcast, a prior censorship was imposed on the applicant: he was absolutely prohibited from mentioning the complaints misappropriated at the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome. This restriction on freedom of expression (Article 10) prevented him from publicly exposing the ongoing denial of justice.

45. Following the media exposure, the leadership of Caritas of [omitted...] made formal promises regarding housing and employment reintegration for the family unit. These commitments were systematically unfulfilled.

46. On 19 April 2007, the applicant sent a registered letter to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Padua [APP. 17, p. 197], explaining the reasons for his departure from the house in Baone.

47. On 23 May 2007, the applicant received notice of a measure from the Public Prosecutor's Office of Perugia [APP. 4, p. 74] via the Police Headquarters (Questura) of Terni [APP. 4, p. 74]. The Inspector in charge informally pointed out to the applicant the absolute vacuity of the investigative activity carried out, highlighting that elementary technical investigative tools—such as wiretaps or environmental surveillance—which were indispensable to establish the reported crimes, had never been activated. The Inspector expressed an extremely severe judgment regarding the conduct of the judicial offices, confirming that the handling of the file appeared aimed solely at its formal closure rather than the establishment of the substantive truth.

48. Furthermore, the notification revealed a procedural short-circuit and a breach of confidentiality of unprecedented gravity: the Public Prosecutor of Perugia had delegated the execution of the request for protection [APP. 4, p. 70] precisely to the Carabinieri Command of Este—meaning to the exact same individuals formally reported for abuses, omissions, and forgery of public documents (falso ideologico) [APP. 4, p. 75, item 2]. The same notification showed that the Este Command had refused the delegation, returning it to a generic "competent judicial police" whose identity was never revealed to the applicant. Consequently, the protection measure was never activated. This omission is distinct from, yet matches in gravity, the investigation into the disappearance of documentation in [omitted...]: while personal protection was entrusted to the reported parties in [omitted...], the investigation into the magistrates of [omitted...] was entrusted to the very same Judicial Police of [omitted...] (the entity under investigation), constituting a dual and systemic betrayal of the obligations of protection and impartiality (Articles 2, 8, and 13).

49. It is highlighted that the applicant never received formal notification of the dismissal orders relating to the proceedings initiated before the Prosecutor's Offices of Perugia and Florence. This practice of omission, technically definable as "deaf dismissal" (archiviazione sorda), systematically precluded the exercise of the right to file an objection within the statutory time limits, consolidating the definitive denial of access to justice (Article 6 § 1) and rendering the domestic remedy a purely theoretical and inaccessible option (Article 13).

50. On 12 February 2008, following a specific request for information made by the applicant via email, the Registry of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Florence communicated that Public Prosecutor Rosario Minna had already ordered the dismissal of the complaint dated 7 March 2007 (No. 594/07 mod. 45) on 27 September 2007 [APP. 7, p. 100]. The applicant thus learned with a five-month delay, and solely through his own initiative, that the body responsible for supervising the Umbrian magistrates had closed the file in the absence of adversarial proceedings and without any official notification.

51. The applicant attempted to rebuild his life in [omitted...] as well. On 14 April 2008, the applicant transmitted a complaint via fax to the Police Headquarters (Questura) to report the persistence of the harassing conduct. On 30 April 2008, the applicant went personally to the Police Headquarters of Pescara, speaking with the director of the DIGOS (Divisione Investigazioni Generali e Operazioni Speciali) regarding what had occurred in the Prosecutor's Offices of [omitted...], [omitted...], and [omitted...]; the director expressed interest in the matter, suggesting a centralization of the various scattered files for a unified investigation. On that occasion, the applicant delivered an evidentiary CD-ROM and was referred to the Anti-Crime Division (settore Anticrimine) for the formalization of the document, which was subsequently forwarded to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Pescara [APP. 8, p. 102]. However, due to new localized ambient pressures, the applicant was forced to abandon the territory of [omitted...] without receiving any subsequent feedback from the judicial authority.

52. On 26 May 2008, the applicant forwarded a further complaint to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Florence for "abuse of power and systematic defamation" [APP. 9, pp. 105-109]. The document analytically recorded the mechanism of institutional "smoke" (fumo istituzionale): the circulation among charitable organizations and law enforcement agencies of defamatory and unverified information that precluded any form of minimum subsistence. This negative "profile" (file), which originated in [omitted...], had reached the applicant even in Pescara, conditioning the operation of local assistance structures and forcing the applicant into a state of perennially induced destitution, in violation of the right to dignity and to private life (Articles 3 and 8).

53. From June 2008, the applicant and his spouse obtained assistance from a wealthy family in Fano, which enabled them to find summer employment and detach themselves from the Caritas environments. This finally allowed them to live in an apartment and reorganize the electronic archive of the countless documents sent to the authorities.

54. In March 2009, while the applicant and his spouse were passing through the courtyard of the "Le Ancore" residence in the locality of [omitted...], they were abruptly intercepted by a patrol of the Carabinieri of [omitted...], which arrived at high speed and in an aggressive manner. The military officers, adopting an inquisitorial stance, insisted on knowing the location of their private domicile, threatening them with a "compulsory accompaniment" (accompagnamento coattivo). This conduct, combined with verbal hostility (insinuations regarding their lifestyle), constituted a form of psychological pressure aimed at violating the confidentiality of the applicants' domicile. The anomalous nature of the operation was confirmed by the intervention of a second Carabinieri patrol from [omitted...]. Having taken note of the formal complaint dated 19 December 2006 lodged in Città di Castello—which already documented the complex history of harassment—the second patrol ordered the immediate release of the applicants, challenging the first patrol over the violation of territorial patrolling regulations and the lack of justification for the intervention in that area.

55. As a consequence of the circumstances described above and the repeated episodes of stalking, the applicants were forced into a compulsory departure from the territory of [omitted...] as well. This decision became inevitable in the face of a serious and imminent danger to their physical safety, aggravated by the manifest failure of the local law enforcement agencies to provide safety and protection.

56. On 20 March 2009, availing himself of the newly introduced legislation concerning acts of harassment (Article 612-bis of the Italian Criminal Code), the applicant lodged a detailed formal complaint for stalking at the Police Headquarters of Terni [APP. 10, pp. 111-120].

PART IV: THE RAID IN Fenili, THE MANDATORY EXPULSION ORDER AND "CIVIL DEATH" (2009 – 2017)

57. From 15 August 2009, the applicant and his spouse began living in Fenili*, thanks to the local parish priest who granted them the use of a room, which lacked a kitchen and heating and was used as a storage space, located far from the parish house. However, they lived in a state of constant psychological siege caused by the mechanism of defamation (the institutional "smoke"). A local resident began to describe them as "untrustworthy criminals," convincing neighbors that the room granted by the parish priest was a den for illicit trafficking or prostitution.

58. To counter this invisible narrative, the applicants implemented a proactive defense, constantly reporting their position and environmental difficulties to the Carabinieri of Città di Castello [APP. 11, pp. 122 and 123], who possessed the historical memory of the case. Despite such diligence, localized hostility culminated on 6 February 2010, when a 112 emergency patrol (Sammartino*) intercepted the applicants using methods akin to a counter-terrorism capture (hands in the air) following an anonymous tip. Only a telephone intervention by Marshal [omitted...], who extended his regards and confirmed receipt of the documents sent from Fenili*, prevented further consequences.

59. The institutional isolation became manifest on 1 June 2010 at 02:30, when the Carabinieri of Fenili*, who had not been informed by their colleagues in Sammartino* or [omitted...], executed a violent night raid to identify "unknown individuals." On that occasion, the military officers established the falsity of the information provided by the parish priest: the applicants did not occupy a "luxury studio apartment with a kitchen," but rather a storage room devoid of furniture, heating, and hot water, where only a bed lay. The Carabinieri took the personal details of the applicant and his spouse.

60. On 3 June 2010, the spouse personally delivered a defensive memorandum to the Commander of Fenili*, [omitted...], to clarify the situation [APP. 11, pp. 124-126] and requested that he speak with his colleague in [omitted...]. The Commander, bound by ties of friendship to the parish priest and the mayor, verbally assaulted the spouse by shouting and categorically refusing to contact the Command of [omitted...] to verify their story, precluding any avenue for impartial mediation and confirming the "closed" nature of the local power structure. The applicant trusted that the commander would eventually read the documentation delivered to him in a calmer moment.

Section -Beasts -

61. On 4 August 2010, after midnight, the State Police executed a violent raid at the accommodation in Fenili*. In the absence of any judicial eviction orders, the agents broke in by forcing open the window shutters. The applicant was forcibly removed, handcuffed, and led away barefoot, preventing him from gathering personal belongings and evidentiary documents kept in the room, such as the original receipts for registered letters R2–R6 [APP. 12, p. 128]. The spouse, who was not present during the blitz, was left alone on the street, deprived of the only house key (which had been seized by the agents) and without any official communication regarding her husband's detention [APP. 12, p. 132].

62. In order to "legalize" the raid and the dispossession of the property, the applicant was instrumentally charged with the offense of resisting a public official (resistenza a Pubblico Ufficiale), with the concurrent appointment of a public defender, Atty. [omitted...] [APP. 12, p. 128]. However, the State failed to formally notify the professional of the appointment, rendering the right to a defense entirely non-existent during the crucial phase of the detention. On 6 August 2010, the applicant attempted to contact the lawyer by sending email communications, which nevertheless remained ignored because the professional, not having been alerted by the Authority, placed no trust in messages originating from individuals unknown to him.

63. The following morning, the applicant was transferred to the Police Headquarters (Questura) of Tiberi* in a state of physical prostration (hypoglycemic attacks and lack of food) and detained in degrading cells. Under threat of prolonged imprisonment, he was forced to sign the identification reports without being allowed to present his version of the facts or to show the documents proving his status as a victim of institutional stalking.

64. After 13:00, a Mandatory Expulsion Order (Foglio di Via Obbligatorio) was served, based on a false and unverified allegation of "social dangerousness," with an obligation to return to the municipality of residence within 24 hours [APP. 12, p. 129]. Released without shoes, financial means, or a telephone, the applicant managed to physically locate the office of Atty. [omitted...] only on 9 August 2010. Having to communicate via the intercom to overcome the initial distrust of the lawyer (who had never been notified by the Police Headquarters), the applicant explained the severity of the abuses suffered, finally enabling the professional to lodge an urgent hierarchical appeal with the Prefect of Tiberi* [APP. 12, p. 133].

65. On 6 August 2010: The applicant transmitted an urgent fax to the Carabinieri of [omitted...], reporting the gravity of the police action, the seizure of original evidentiary documents, and the disappearance of his wife, who had been left without access to the accommodation and without news of her spouse following the night raid [APP. 12, p. 132]. Only after appealing to the Prefect was the applicant able to return to search for his wife, finding her on the evening of 9 August in a state of severe prostration. The following day, a Carabiniere outside the library carried out a document check. He stated that everything was in order, without saying anything else. From that day on, their life as homeless persons within the territory of Sammartino* began.

66. Following the raid of 4 August 2010, the applicant and his spouse sank into a state of paralyzing terror and profound prostration. This event marked a definitive collapse of trust in Law Enforcement: unlike previous experiences at the Police Headquarters of [omitted...], [omitted...], and [omitted...]—where officials and inspectors had shown sensitivity and a willingness to listen—the violent and arbitrary action in Tiberi* produced the awareness that the authorities could act outside the law, deliberately ignoring the massive volume of motions and complaints already deposited in [omitted...], [omitted...], and [omitted...].

67. Out of fear of further physical and instrumental retaliation by the personnel of the summer police detachment, who regularly patrolled the territory of Sammartino* until mid-September, the applicants were forced to hide among the seasonal tourist flows. They lived in a state of forced concealment, sleeping rough on the beach or in makeshift shelters, carefully avoiding any contact with uniforms due to a well-founded fear that new charges would be fabricated to justify pre-trial detention. Only after the dismantling of the seasonal police post did the applicants find the courage to come out of the shadows to attempt to request assistance from the Municipality of Sammartino*.

68. On 27 October 2010, the applicant deposited a defensive memorandum with [omitted...], challenging the inertia of the municipal Social Services which, despite the documented housing emergency, had conditioned any assistance upon impracticable reintegration paths. On 10 November 2010, a fax was also sent to the Carabinieri [omitted...] to document the failure of the mediation attempts with the Municipality of Sammartino* [APP. 12, pp. 135 and 136].

69. Furthermore, the action of the State Police caused irreparable damage to the applicant's reputation, exacerbating the mechanism of localized defamation. Being led away handcuffed, barefoot, and under the gaze of the neighborhood residents, crystallized a false perception within the territory of the applicant as a "dangerous criminal," seemingly validating the calumnies previously spread. This "black veil" of prejudice precluded any possibility of social or occupational reintegration: every attempt at interaction was filtered through the stigma of the night raid and the Mandatory Expulsion Order, condemning the applicants to a four-year period of extreme destitution and isolation. The "eviction" from the Curia's room on 4 August automatically terminated any further assistance from parishes and Caritas. The applicant and his spouse had no choice but to live rough in the territory. This situation was rendered difficult not only by the conditions of poverty but also by various targeted attacks that continued to occur, some of which were crystallized in communications sent to the authorities—such as the case of Wanda, who accused the applicant of drug trafficking in the library [APP. 12, p. 138], or on 18 June 2011, when during an identity check in a public place, the applicant suffered explicit verbal threats from an officer of the Carabinieri Corps, who prospective the issuance of a new expulsion measure ("Foglio di via") [APP. 12, p. 139].

70. On 26 November 2011, the applicant and his spouse finally obtained temporary hospitality at the domicile of a healthcare worker in [omitted...]. On 25 January 2012, following a sudden behavioral change by the host, the applicant and his spouse were forcibly expelled from the domicile in [omitted...]; the stress of the event caused the applicant an acute medical emergency, resulting in his urgent transport via 118 emergency services to the Emergency Room of Concanesia*. On 28 January 2012: The applicant and his spouse filed a formal complaint at the Carabinieri Station Command of Sammartino* [APP. 12, pp. 142-146], analytically reporting the moral violence, labor exploitation, and harassing conduct suffered during the period of hospitality in [omitted...], also providing audio recordings in support of their defense. Despite drafting the report on the computer, the Carabinieri did not issue any receipt for the filing of the document at the barracks.

71. On 16 November 2012: The applicant transmitted a communication to the Police Headquarters (Questura) of Tiberi* [APP. 14, p. 168], highlighting that the 2010 Mandatory Expulsion Order had created a situation that was never resolved. On 10 January 2013: The applicant transmitted an open letter to the Municipalities of the Riviera to report the "homeless" condition of the family unit. However, these and other attempts yielded no results.

72. Only on 28 March 2013, the national association [omitted...] published an interview-dossier [APP. 13, pp. 149-152] aimed at framing the applicant's history as a case of human and civil rights violations, formally urging an intervention by the Municipality of Sammartino*.

73. On 28 May 2013: The applicant transmitted, through [omitted...], a formal notice to comply (pursuant to Law 241/90 and Article 328 of the Italian Criminal Code) to the Mayor, demanding the adoption of urgent measures for the housing emergency within a 30-day time limit [APP. 13, p. 153].

74. On 24 July 2013: Following the unsuccessful expiration of the notice period, the applicant filed a complaint at the Public Prosecutor's Office of Tiberi* [APP. 13, p. 156] for omission of official duties (omissione di atti d'ufficio, Article 328 of the Italian Criminal Code) against the Mayor of Sammartino*, challenging the institutional silence maintained regarding the requests for protection.

75. Despite the manifest condition of necessity and the repeated appeals, including the complaint against the mayor filed on 24 July 2013, no local authority provided assistance. The silence of the Sammartino* Carabinieri and the stone wall erected by the municipal administration—which conditioned aid upon requirements that were impossible for someone who had been deprived of residency by the State itself—constituted inhuman and degrading treatment that persisted throughout the entire period of living outdoors. The impossibility of operating within a framework of legality and security, caused by the intentional malfeasance of the Public Security authorities of Tiberi*, destroyed any remaining capacity for asset protection, leading to the definitive loss of the home in Baone in the total absence of notifications or means of objection.

76. On 24 March 2014, the spouse of the applicant forwarded the "Foglio11" dossier to the DIGOS of Tiberi* [APP. 14, p. 168].

77. On 8 August 2014, the applicant suffered the theft of his pouch containing his passport, identity card, and driver's license. On 10 August 2014, the applicant formalized the report of the theft at the Carabinieri Sub-Station (Tenenza) of Concanesia*, obtaining a certified copy of the report, which would become his only precarious form of identification for the years to come [APP. 13, p. 166].

Ecco la traduzione formattata in Markdown per quest'ultima porzione della memoria integrativa, applicando rigidamente il formato data internazionale esteso (DD Month YYYY) e utilizzando la terminologia legale e istituzionale idonea (ad esempio, deregistration due to untraceability, civil death, bureaucratic stalemate):

78. On 24 September 2014, the four-year period of living rough came to an end: the applicant obtained temporary hospitality at the domicile of a private citizen in [omitted...], but without the possibility of establishing legal residency and replacing his identity documents.

79. On 20 July 2015: The applicant (and on his behalf, his spouse) forwarded the updated "Memento 6" dossier to the DIGOS of Tiberi* [APP. 14, p. 169].

80. In February 2017, the applicant's spouse returned to [omitted...] to seek a reopening of dialogue with the authorities; this initiative highlighted the shift in attitude of Marshal [omitted...] and the total lack of institutional cooperation towards resolving the civil registry blockade.

81. On 17 March 2017: The formal complaint titled "The Cancer of Society" (Il Cancro della Società) was forwarded by registered mail to the Public Prosecutor's Office of Perugia [APP. 14, pp. 171 and 172].

82. On 9 August 2017: The registry office of the Municipality of Baone officially communicated that the applicant had been deregistered from the resident population registry due to untraceability on 5 August 2010 (the day following the issuance of the Mandatory Expulsion Order), thereby formalizing his status of legal non-existence and the loss of civil rights for the entire seven-year period [APP. 14, p. 173].

83. On 12 September 2017: The municipality of birth formally rejected the application for registry enrollment attempted by the spouse as a "homeless person," declining any jurisdiction and requiring the applicant to address exclusively the municipality of habitual dwelling, thus consolidating the bureaucratic stalemate of "civil death" [APP. 14, p. 174]. Consequently, it was pointless for the applicant to try this avenue as well. Concurrently, the municipality of dwelling showed no willingness to provide any fictitious residency. On 31 October 2017, the period of available temporary support in [omitted...] ended. On 12 November 2017: The family unit of the property owner proceeded to change the locks.

PART V: THE RECOVERY OF IDENTITY AND THE ASSESSMENT OF PERMANENT DAMAGES (2018 – 2026)

84. In November 2017, the applicant’s spouse obtained an employment contract as a 24-hour live-in family caregiver in Sammartino*; this employment allowed for the restoration of legal residency at the Municipal Hall (Casa Comunale) and the subsequent issuance of valid identity documents, initiating the phase of reclaiming legal subjectivity for the entire family unit.

85. On 5 February 2018: Issuance of the Identity Card and the Voter Registration Card. After eight years of "civil death," the applicant regained legal subjectivity and access to fundamental civil and political rights. The "assessment of biological damages" began. Diagnosis of an incarcerated epigastric hernia and chronic joint lesions, pathologies directly attributable to the physical wear and tear of the four-year period spent as a homeless person [APP. 15, p. 176], along with the first dental orthopantomogram certifying a state of devastation of the oral cavity (chronic periodontitis and residual roots) [APP. 15, pp. 178, 182]. Specialist diagnosis of reactive hypoglycemia and severe arterial hypertension (peak 180/105 mmHg), chronic pathologies attributable to the prolonged psychophysical stress and metabolic disorder accumulated during the period of destitution [APP. 15, p. 179]. Magnetic Resonance Imaging report of the cervical spine documenting the presence of a "disco-osteophytic bar" with a reduction of the neural canal, clinical evidence of the bone wear suffered by the applicant [APP. 15, p. 183].

86. On 8 May 2019: Personnel from the Carabinieri Corps carried out an inspection at the applicant’s domicile to request clarifications regarding a formal complaint filed in 2015; having gone to the barracks, he signed documents for which, once again, no official acknowledgment or receipt was issued, mirroring what had already occurred upon the delivery of the complaint on 28 January 2012 [APP. 12, pp. 142–146].

87. On 4 July 2019: A serious clerical error occurred in the digital report of the Sammartino* Emergency Room, where the applicant was erroneously indicated as a subject "on antidepressant therapy." This unfounded information tainted his electronic health record, generating diagnostic prejudices. In order to protect his integrity and halt this "pathologization," the applicant was forced to obtain a manual rectification signed and stamped by the Head of the Department [APP. 17, pp. 200–201].

88. On 3 July 2021: Death of the applicant’s mother; the family members omitted immediate notification of the event, subsequently using the inheritance succession procedures as instrumental bait to force a resumption of physical contact previously denied by the applicant. On 6 and 7 March 2022, a domestic raid by his sisters took place, and a violation of the private garage was recorded for the purpose of inspecting the assets.

89. On 12 August 2022: The applicant received a formal notice from a debt collection agency regarding the mortgage of the house lost in 2005. This constituted the absolute first communication received in this regard.

90. April – September 2024: The applicant attempted professional reintegration within the IT sector at a company in Parma; however, this consisted of a fixed-term employment of only 3+3 months. The relationship concluded with the omission of the payment for the final month, confirming the contractual vulnerability deriving from the long, forced career gap. The physical stigma, due primarily to the loss of teeth, blocked various potential employment relationships from the outset.

91. On 15 January 2026: A new siege of the domicile was carried out by the applicant’s sisters, who, by their own admission, conducted stakeouts, questioned people, gathered information from local commercial businesses in the neighborhood, and spread private information concerning the applicant. On 2 February 2026: The applicant transmitted a formal complaint via registered mail for stalking (Article 612-bis of the Italian Criminal Code) and harassment against his family members, requesting the issuance of a Police Warning (Ammonimento del Questore) to protect his personal safety and autonomy [APP. 15, pp. 184–191].

SECTION 2: STATEMENT OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

92. Article 6 § 1 (Right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy). The Italian State has violated the applicant’s right of access to justice by arbitrarily precluding his right to a defense. This interference materialized through the documented and intentional physical suppression of the complaints and documents deposited with the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome (see §§ 18–20; APP. 2, pp. 37–52), culminating in the ideologically false statement certifying the "failure to receive" the same (see § 25 and § 33), despite the official transmission executed by the Military Prosecutor's Office (see § 28; APP. 3, p. 61). This preclusion was further aggravated by delegating the investigations to the very subjects who had been reported (see § 48; APP. 4, pp. 74–75) and by the practice of "silent dismissal" (the systematic failure to notify dismissal orders, see §§ 49–50; APP. 7, p. 100). Such state conduct stripped domestic remedies of any effectiveness, rendering them purely theoretical and inaccessible.

93. Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). A violation of Article 8 is alleged under the dual aspect of the negative obligation (prohibition of unjustified interference) and the positive obligation (duty to protect).

Negative Obligation: The night raid executed in the absence of a warrant (see § 61), the issuance of the Mandatory Expulsion Order (see § 64), and the sudden civil registry deregistration (see § 82; APP. 14, p. 173) constitute extremely grave interferences by the State. These measures, lacking any legitimate legal basis and being entirely disproportionate in a democratic society, condemned the applicant to "civil death" (the deprivation of legal identity and residency) for over eight years.
Positive Obligation: The State systematically failed to protect the applicant’s domicile and private sphere from aggression by third parties (corporate and familial stalking), completely ignoring repeated requests for protection (see §§ 9, 37, and 91; APP. 15, pp. 184–191).
Right to Reputation: The inputting of deliberately false or distorted medical and psychiatric data into institutional databases (see § 21 and § 87; APP. 17, p. 200), combined with the circulation of defamatory police information packs (see § 51), violated the moral integrity and social identity of the applicant, precluding any possibility of reintegration.

94. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Protection of Property). There is a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions deriving from the omission of the State's positive obligations of protection. The systematic investigative inertia regarding the prior offenses of corporate dispossession and trespass to domicile (see §§ 10 and 26) caused the absolute destruction of the software asset [omitted...]. This state omission triggered, as a direct consequence, the foreclosure loss of the family unit's sole safe-haven asset (the home in Baone, see § 4 and § 89), amounting to a de facto expropriation resulting from a denial of justice.

95. Article 3 (Prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). The violent and unjustified action of the State Police (the night raid and forcible removal, see §§ 61–63), coupled with the imposition of the Mandatory Expulsion Order and the subsequent denial of any basic social and civil registry assistance (see §§ 75–77), forced the applicant to live rough outdoors for four years. This treatment inflicted by the State surpassed the minimum level of severity required under Article 3, causing the applicant permanent and irreversible biological damage (devastation of the oral cavity, chronic osteoarticular and metabolic pathologies as documented in § 85; APP. 15), thereby obliterating his dignity and psychophysical integrity.

96. CONCLUSIONS AND CLAIMS: In light of the foregoing, the applicant requests that the Honorable Court: Main claim: find and declare that the Italian State, through the actions and omissions of its organs, has violated Articles 3, 6 § 1, 8, 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

SECTION 3: COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIA

97. In addition to what has already been succinctly stated in Section G of the Official Application Form, the following is specified. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the failure to finalize proceedings before the Court of Cassation is exclusively attributable to force majeure circumstances of state origin. The established non-existence of notifications concerning the dismissal orders (see §§ 49–50; APP. 7, p. 100) and the procedural short-circuit (see § 48; APP. 4, pp. 74–75) materially deprived the applicant of the statutory time limits and legal instruments required to lodge an objection (Akdivar and Others v. Turkey).

98. Concerning the 4-month time limit, the violation constitutes a "continuing situation." The omission of the State's obligations of protection is still ongoing, as irrefutably proven by the formal complaint for stalking deposited on 2 February 2026 (see § 91; APP. 15, pp. 184–191), in respect of which the institutions remain inactive. The time limit for applying to the Court constantly renews itself in the face of the persistent state inertia.

99. Concurrently, attention is drawn to an absolute objective impediment that precluded access to the Court in previous years. This impediment is documented and proven by the state of "civil death" to which the State relegated the applicant (civil registry deregistration, absence of legal identity, see § 82 and § 85) and by the clinical and logistical devastation resulting from the degrading treatment suffered (living rough outdoors, see §§ 67 and 75; see APP. 15, pp. 176–183), which inhibited any capacity to take legal action and secure legal representation.

Note:

1 The imposition of silence regarding the facts of [omitted...] distorted the public narrative, reducing the applicant's state of destitution to a mere local news event and concealing its institutional causes.

Translational and Methodological Note

This explanatory note details the specific linguistic, legal, and formal criteria applied during the translation of this legal memorandum (memoria integrativa) from Italian into English, ensuring its compliance with the strict procedural and jurisprudential standards of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

1. Standardization of Date Formats

In accordance with international drafting standards for applications before the ECtHR, all numeric dates from the original Italian text (previously appearing in short formats such as 22/03/06, 04/10/2005, or 04/08/10) have been systematically converted into the Extended International Date Format (DD Month YYYY).

Example: 22/03/06 has been rendered as 22 March 2006.
Example: 04/10/2005 has been rendered as 4 October 2005.
This conversion eliminates any ambiguity regarding regional date interpretations and ensures absolute clarity for the Court's analytical examination of the temporal chain of events.

2. Legal Terminology and ECtHR Jurisprudential Mapping

To elevate the domestic narrative to the standard of international human rights litigation, key Italian legal concepts have been translated using recognized equivalents from the Court's case law:

Dolo Procedurale / Condotta Dolosa: Rendered as procedural intentional malfeasance or intentional misappropriation/suppression, steering clear of generic translations like "fraud" or "bad faith" to highlight the deliberate abuse of institutional mechanisms by state agents.
Archiviazione Sorda: Translated using the technical conceptualization of deaf dismissal (or dismissal in the absence of adversarial proceedings), emphasizing the procedural violation of failing to notify the applicant, which directly impacts Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
Falso Ideologico: Rendered as forgery of public documents or ideologically false statements/assumptions, accurately mapping the criminal offense under domestic law onto the structural denial of access to justice.
Fumo Istituzionale: Translated as institutional "smoke" or the circulation of defamatory and unverified information packs, defining the precise mechanisms of administrative and environmental stigmatization under Article 8.
Morte Civile: Preserved as the recognized legal-philosophical concept of "civil death", specifically defined within the text as the systematic deprivation of legal identity, residency, and civil rights.
Accompagnamento Coattivo: Rendered as compulsory accompaniment, matching the coercive, non-custodial restriction of physical liberty by law enforcement.

3. Institutional Equivalents

Domestic judicial organs and police bodies have been contextualized to maintain clarity for international readers while retaining original operational values:

GIP (Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari) Judge for Preliminary Investigations.
Cancelleria / Segreteria del PM Registry / Public Prosecutor's Registry.
Questura / Tenenza Police Headquarters / Carabinieri Sub-Station.
Denuncia-Querela Formal complaint (incorporating both the reporting of facts and the explicit request for prosecution).
Ammonimento del Questore Police Warning.

4. Textual Integrity and Anonymization

All original exhibit markers (e.g., ALL. 3, p. 61) have been seamlessly transitioned to standard ECtHR reference tags (APP. 3, p. 61 for Appendix). The placeholder [omitted...] has been standardized to maintain privacy mandates without interrupting the logical chronological structure of the violations presented under Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.