Go to content

ESCC-RICCARDO GRESTA BLUE BADGE CASE EASTBOURNE 2022 UPDATE 2026 - The Record Speaks

This publication is grounded in fundamental rights:  
- Art. 6, 8, 10 ECHR (defence, private life & reputation, public‑interest documentation)  
- Art. 2, 21, 24 Italian Constitution** (fundamental rights, freedom of expression, right to defence)  
- Art. 89 GDPR (archiving in the public interest)
This platform operates as a website integrated with a Progressive Web App (PWA).
A small “Install” button should appear in the bottom‑right corner of your screen,
although its visibility may vary depending on your system configuration and browser settings.

THE RECORD SPEAKS

“Protection Mode enabled — Security Level 4/5.
System running with intermediate safeguards and enhanced telemetry collection.”

“Protection Mode enabled — Security Level 4/5.
System running with intermediate safeguards and enhanced telemetry collection.”

“Protection Mode enabled — Security Level 4/5.
System running with intermediate safeguards and enhanced telemetry collection.”

“Protection Mode enabled — Security Level 4/5.
System running with intermediate safeguards and enhanced telemetry collection.”

“Protection Mode enabled — Security Level 4/5.
System running with intermediate safeguards and enhanced telemetry collection.”

“Protection Mode enabled — Security Level 4/5.
System running with intermediate safeguards and enhanced telemetry collection.”


Skip menu
Notice: The Progressive Web App (PWA) - STATUS: OK / WEBSITE - STATUS: OK
therecordspeaks.it
Skip menu

ESCC-RICCARDO GRESTA BLUE BADGE CASE EASTBOURNE 2022 UPDATE 2026

Public Engagement > PUBLIC LEGAL NOTIFICATIONS
ESCC-RICCARDO GRESTA BLUE BADGE CASE EASTBOURNE 2022 UPDATE 2026

Executive Summary
Purpose of this report   This document provides an updated overview of the online status of information relating to the 2022 “Blue Badge case” involving Riccardo Gresta, assessing discrepancies between media reporting and official records available as of 2026.
Key findings
  • Major media outlets — including ITV Meridian, Sussex Express, The Argus, What's on Brighton, Bournefree Live and PressReader — continue to host the 2022 articles unchanged.
  • These articles repeat identical Case Descriptor Lines that are contradicted by official documents, ESCC internal notes and CCRC material.
  • Some articles were published before the hearing took place, contributing to a narrative that does not align with the later documentary record.
  • ESCC replaced, rather than removed, its original article; cached versions and search engine snippets remained visible.
  • Following notification of criminal proceedings in Italy, Yahoo and Internet Archive removed their versions within 48 hours.
  • ESCC’s main page and seven mirror (1 flashed "moved") pages shifted to 404 status over a two‑day period, suggesting manual rather than automated removal.
  • The staggered removal of mirror pages has generated “ghost snippets” and indexing anomalies across search engines.
  • As of 2026, the media narrative remains publicly accessible and uncorrected, while the official record presents a materially different account.
Implications   The persistence of outdated reporting, combined with inconsistent technical handling by ESCC, has created a digital environment in which the public record does not reflect the available evidence. This raises broader questions about accuracy, transparency and the responsibilities of public bodies and media organisations when new information emerges.

2026 Status Report: Persistence of Inaccurate Case Information Online
By 2026, four years after the original coverage, a significant amount of information published by local and regional media about the so‑called “Blue Badge case” remains online exactly as it appeared in 2022. The same Case Descriptor Lines — repeated across outlets such as ITV Meridian, Sussex Express, The Argus, PressReader and several regional platforms — are still accessible and indexed, despite the existence of official documents, internal ESCC notes and material provided to the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) which contradict key elements of the initial narrative. In some instances, articles were published even before the hearing took place, creating a clear gap between the media portrayal of 2022 and the documentary evidence now available.
In July 2021, Riccardo Gresta completed his British naturalisation, taking the oath before East Sussex County Council (ESCC). Less than a year later, in April 2022, his name appeared in the first allegations linked to the case — the beginning of a sequence of events that, despite subsequent developments, continues to leave a digital footprint. After more than nine years living in the UK, Gresta later returned to Italy, where on 23 December 2025 — following repeated attempts to resolve the matter informally and ESCC’s failure to comply with applicable requirements — he filed a formal criminal complaint with the Italian authorities. ESCC responded promptly, informing him that the 2022 article had been removed. In practice, however, the page had not been deleted but replaced, leaving cached versions, snippets and indexing still visible on search engines. This was reported to ESCC, but on 9 January 2026 the council’s representative, Kate Richmond, stated that no further assistance could be provided.
A further development occurred on 11 February 2026, when Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) and Yahoo removed the link to the article within 48 hours of being notified of the ongoing criminal proceedings in Italy. Under Italian law, defamation and unlawful data processing are criminal offences rather than civil matters.
Within two days of this notification, ESCC’s main page also shifted from the replacement content to a 404 Page Not Found. The same pattern appeared across several mirror pages within the council’s website, with one notable detail: each mirror page displayed a different replacement article, and the transition to 404 did not occur simultaneously. The six identified pages now all return a 404, but the change took place over a two‑day period, one page at a time, suggesting manual intervention rather than an automated technical process.
Despite these removals, neither the replacement of the article nor the subsequent 404 pages represent technically sound procedures and, in the Italian context, they are not legally adequate either. The presence of multiple mirror pages — and their staggered removal — has already affected search engine behaviour, generating ghost snippets: corrupted or mismatched fragments of text, sometimes linked to unrelated websites, which continue to reproduce elements of the 2022 narrative.
Meanwhile, all media publications that originally circulated the same Case Descriptor Line remain online, fully accessible and indexed. ITV Meridian, Sussex Express, The Argus, PressReader and other outlets continue to display the original version of events, using recurring formulations such as “A man from Eastbourne who faked a medical letter to try and claim a Blue Badge” and referring to a sentencing date of 22 December. These articles, still publicly available in 2026, have not been updated in light of the official material released afterwards — including CCRC documentation, ESCC internal notes and witness evidence — which contradict central aspects of the media narrative. The continued availability of these articles, contrasted with the selective removal carried out only by ESCC and a small number of digital archives, sustains a representation of the case that is no longer aligned with the official record.
For a complete and detailed overview, the full list of sources, titles, URLs and Case Descriptor Lines as they currently appear online is provided below.

Questions that naturally arise from the facts presented
A reader approaching this sequence of events with an impartial mindset is likely to reflect on several points. The following questions emerge directly from the documentary record and from the continued online presence of the 2022 media coverage.
1. Why do all the media outlets still host the 2022 articles unchanged, despite the availability of official documents that contradict key elements of those reports?
2. Why have none of the articles been updated, corrected or supplemented in light of the material later provided by the CCRC and by ESCC itself?
3. How can several publications continue to report a sentencing date of 22 December when CCRC documentation supplied by ESCC indicates a different date?
4. Why has the 2022 media narrative remained intact, while ESCC, Yahoo and Internet Archive have removed or altered their versions of the same content?
5. What effect does it have on public perception when only the council and certain archives remove material, while the media versions remain fully accessible and indexed?
6. Why were the identical Case Descriptor Lines — repeated across multiple outlets — never revisited or verified once official evidence emerged that contradicted them?
7. What impression does it create for a reader in 2026 to find articles still online that were published even before the hearing, with no indication that subsequent developments exist?
8. How reliable is a narrative that remains unchanged despite the availability of official records that challenge its accuracy?
9. What responsibility do media organisations have when outdated or incomplete information continues to circulate and shape public understanding?
10. What should an ordinary citizen reasonably expect when searching for their own name online and finding uncorrected media content that no longer aligns with the official record?

Conclusion
Taken together, the events outlined in this report highlight a persistent misalignment between the media narrative established in 2022 and the official documentation now available. While ESCC and certain digital archives have removed or altered their versions of the material, the original media articles remain publicly accessible and continue to shape the online record. The coexistence of outdated reporting, inconsistent technical handling by the council, and the emergence of conflicting official evidence raises legitimate questions about accuracy, accountability and the long‑term impact of uncorrected information in the public domain. As the situation stands in 2026, the digital footprint of the case no longer reflects the documentary record, leaving unresolved issues that merit further clarification and public scrutiny.

Corrective Statement – Postal Evidence and Document Provenance
Beyond any reasonable doubt, and according to basic mathematical logic, the postal evidence demonstrates that Mr Riccardo Gresta did not send the falsified NHS medical letter. This conclusion is supported by objective documentation — namely the Royal Mail postal certificate and ESCC’s own internal notes — as well as by the first‑hand testimony of the carer who physically posted the envelope.
The postal certificate records a total weight of 10 grams, a measurement fully consistent with one single A4 sheet folded once inside a lightweight envelope, and incompatible with any multi‑page document. The carer confirms that she posted one folded A4 sheet, written on both sides, and that no attachments were enclosed. ESCC’s internal notes likewise record the receipt of a single letter, aligning precisely with both the postal weight and the carer’s account.
It is also important to note that all documents examined on this website originate from the CCRC dossier, which contains the materials supplied directly by East Sussex County Council and its Legal Services.
Therefore, Mr Riccardo Gresta did not forge any NHS medical letter to obtain the renewal of the Blue Badge, as confirmed by the objective evidence and the documented record.

Brand Safety Notice – Advertising and Ongoing Proceedings

UK advertisers should be aware that third‑party advertising may currently appear alongside content relating to a case that is under formal legal scrutiny by the Italian authorities.
A criminal and civil complaint has been filed in Italy by the interested party, Mr Riccardo Gresta. Following the initiation of these proceedings, East Sussex County Council removed the original ESCC Newsroom article “Faked letter lands Blue Badge applicant in court”, which now displays a “404 – Page Not Found” status.

The Internet Archive has also removed its archived copy after being notified of the ongoing legal process.
Given this context, advertisers may wish to review the placement of their ads on external pages reporting on this matter.

The accuracy and lawfulness of those publications are presently being examined within an active international legal framework, and advertising may therefore appear next to material that is subject to formal review — a situation that, on this occasion, does not involve the individual originally named in the headline and may, in due course, attract a somewhat broader audience than initially expected.
This notice is issued to ensure transparency for advertisers and readers, and to support informed brand‑safety decisions regarding advertising placement.


Full list of sources, titles, URLs and Case Descriptor Lines as they currently appear online.

PUBBLICATION: ITV Meridian - ITV Topic Page - ITV News Meridian
TITLE: Sussex man who faked doctor's letter to claim Blue Badge caught through 'grammatical errors'
FORENSIC ANLYSIS: ARTICLE - HMTL CODE
TITLE FACEBOOK: Riccardo Gresta forged a letter from a neurologist, claiming he was unable to walk any further than 20 metres.
Case Descriptor Line:
  1. A man from Eastbourne man who faked a medical letter to try and claim a Blue Badge has been handed a suspended prison sentence.
  2. He submitted the letter to East Sussex County Council (ESCC) in an attempt to support his application for a Blue Badge.
  3. Sentencing on December 22.
  4. When interviewed by East Sussex County Council’s investigations officer,  Gresta denied he had produced the letter, and even made a complaint to  the Local Government Ombudsmen.
Formal Notice: Inaccurate Case Descriptor Line Contradicted by Official Records: evidence show:
  1. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “faked a medical letter to try and claim a Blue Badge.
  2. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “submitted a falsified medical letter to East Sussex County Council in an attempt to support a Blue Badge application.
  3. Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) documents sent to Riccardo Gresta — provided to the CCRC directly by ESCC — show a sentencing date of 24 December 2024, which contradicts the claim that sentencing occurred on 22 December. The ESCC Newsroom article was published on 23 December 2024, one day before the hearing.
  4. Official records show that the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman is dated 08/05/2022, the interview‑notification letter is dated 15/06/2022, and the interview meeting took place on 30/06/2022.

PUBBLICATION: Sussex Express / SussexWorld
TITLE: Eastbourne man given suspended prison sentence after faking medical letter for Blue Badge application
FORENSIC ANLYSIS: ARTICLE - HMTL CODE
Case Descriptor Line:
  1. An Eastbourne man who faked a medical letter to support a Blue Badge  application has been handed a suspended prison sentence, East Sussex  County Council (ESCC) has said.
  2. The 45-year-old, from Elms Avenue, had submitted a letter from a  neurologist to support his application to ESCC for a Blue Badge.
  3. Sentencing on December 22.
  4. When interviewed by East Sussex County Council’s investigations officer,  Gresta denied he had produced the letter, and even made a complaint to  the Local Government Ombudsmen.
Formal Notice: Inaccurate Case Descriptor Line Contradicted by Official Records: evidence shjow:
  1. Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) documents sent to Riccardo Gresta — provided to the CCRC directly by ESCC — show a sentencing date of 24 December 2024, which contradicts the claim that sentencing occurred on 22 December. The ESCC Newsroom article was published on 23 December 2024, one day before the hearing.
  2. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “faked a medical letter to try and claim a Blue Badge.
  3. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “submitted a falsified medical letter to East Sussex County Council in an attempt to support a Blue Badge application.
  4. Official records show that the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman is dated 08/05/2022, the interview‑notification letter is dated 15/06/2022, and the interview meeting took place on 30/06/2022.
 
PUBBLICATION: The Argus
TITLE: Eastbourne man sentenced in Hove after council blue badge fraud
FORENSIC ANLYSIS: ARTICLE - HMTL CODE
Case Descriptor Line:
  1. A man who pleaded guilty to fraud after faking a medical letter to get a blue disability badge has been sentenced.
  2. Riccardo Gresta, of Elms Avenue in Eastbourne, submitted a letter from a neurologist claiming that...
  3. Sentencing on December 22.
  4. When interviewed by East Sussex County Council’s investigations officer,  Gresta denied he had produced the letter, and even made a complaint to  the Local Government Ombudsmen.
Formal Notice: Inaccurate Case Descriptor Line Contradicted by Official Records: evidence shjow:
  1. Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) documents sent to Riccardo Gresta — provided to the CCRC directly by ESCC — show a sentencing date of 24 December 2024, which contradicts the claim that sentencing occurred on 22 December. The ESCC Newsroom article was published on 23 December 2024, one day before the hearing.
  2. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “faked a medical letter to try and claim a Blue Badge.
  3. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “submitted a falsified medical letter to East Sussex County Council in an attempt to support a Blue Badge application.
  4. Official records show that the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman is dated 08/05/2022, the interview‑notification letter is dated 15/06/2022, and the interview meeting took place on 30/06/2022.

PUBBLICATION: What’s On In Brighton
TITLE: Eastbourne man sentenced in Hove after council blue badge fraud
FORENSIC ANLYSIS: ARTICLE - HMTL CODE
Case Descriptor Line:
  1. A man who pleaded guilty to fraud after faking a medical letter to get a blue disability badge has been sentenced.
  2. submitted a letter from a neurologist claiming that he was unable to walk further than 20 metres.
  3. Sentencing on December 22.
  4. When interviewed by East Sussex County Council’s investigations officer,  Gresta denied he had produced the letter, and even made a complaint to  the Local Government Ombudsmen.
Formal Notice: Inaccurate Case Descriptor Line Contradicted by Official Records: evidence shjow:
  1. Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) documents sent to Riccardo Gresta — provided to the CCRC directly by ESCC — show a sentencing date of 24 December 2024, which contradicts the claim that sentencing occurred on 22 December. The ESCC Newsroom article was published on 23 December 2024, one day before the hearing.
  2. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “faked a medical letter to try and claim a Blue Badge.
  3. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “submitted a falsified medical letter to East Sussex County Council in an attempt to support a Blue Badge application.
  4. Official records show that the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman is dated 08/05/2022, the interview‑notification letter is dated 15/06/2022, and the interview meeting took place on 30/06/2022.

PUBBLICATION: Bournefree Live
TITLE: Eastbourne man wrote fake NHS letter to gain Blue Badge
FORENSIC ANLYSIS: ARTICLE - HMTL CODE
Case Descriptor Line:
  1. AN Eastbourne man who faked a medical letter to support a Blue Badge application has been handed a suspended prison sentence.
  2. The 45-year-old, from Elms Avenue, had submitted a letter from a  neurologist to support his application to East Sussex County Council for  a Blue Badge.
  3. Sentencing on December 22.
  4. When interviewed by East Sussex County Council’s investigations officer,  Gresta denied he had produced the letter, and even made a complaint to  the Local Government Ombudsmen.
Formal Notice: Inaccurate Case Descriptor Line Contradicted by Official Records: evidence shjow:
  1. Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) documents sent to Riccardo Gresta — provided to the CCRC directly by ESCC — show a sentencing date of 24 December 2024, which contradicts the claim that sentencing occurred on 22 December. The ESCC Newsroom article was published on 23 December 2024, one day before the hearing.
  2. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “faked a medical letter to try and claim a Blue Badge.
  3. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “submitted a falsified medical letter to East Sussex County Council in an attempt to support a Blue Badge application.
  4. Official records show that the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman is dated 08/05/2022, the interview‑notification letter is dated 15/06/2022, and the interview meeting took place on 30/06/2022.

PUBBLICATION: PRESSREADER
TITLE: For­ger’s park­ing plot rap
FORENSIC ANLYSIS: ARTICLE - HMTL CODE
Case Descriptor Line:
  1. A FRAUDSTER faked a medic’s let­ter to obtain a dis­abled park­ing per­mit by claim­ing he could not walk more than 20 yards.  Ric­cardo Gresta, 45, copied a genu­ine let­ter from a neur­o­lo­gist and passed it off as his own to back up an...
  2. The 45-year-old, from Elms Avenue, had submitted a letter from a neurologist to support his application to East Sussex County Council for a Blue Badge.
  3. Sentencing on December 22.
  4. When interviewed by East Sussex County Council’s investigations officer,  Gresta denied he had produced the letter, and even made a complaint to  the Local Government Ombudsmen.
Formal Notice: Inaccurate Case Descriptor Line Contradicted by Official Records: evidence shjow:
  1. Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) documents sent to Riccardo Gresta — provided to the CCRC directly by ESCC — show a sentencing date of 24 December 2024, which contradicts the claim that sentencing occurred on 22 December. The ESCC Newsroom article was published on 23 December 2024, one day before the hearing.
  2. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “faked a medical letter to try and claim a Blue Badge.
  3. Objective evidence a witness and ESCC internal notes contradict the claim that Riccardo Gresta “submitted a falsified medical letter to East Sussex County Council in an attempt to support a Blue Badge application.
  4. Official records show that the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman is dated 08/05/2022, the interview‑notification letter is dated 15/06/2022, and the interview meeting took place on 30/06/2022.
TITLE: Faked letter lands Blue Badge applicant in court
FORENSIC ANLYSIS: ARTICLE - HMTL CODE
STATUS: 404 - NOT CORRECT PROCEDUR - LIVE INDEXING AND CACHING

MIRROR PAGE: 2011/03
STATUS: 404 - NOT CORRECT PROCEDUR - LIVE INDEXING AND CACHING
 
MIRROR PAGE: 2007/02
STATUS: 404 - NOT CORRECT PROCEDUR - LIVE INDEXING AND CACHING
 
MIRROR PAGE: PAGE 67
STATUS: 404 - NOT CORRECT PROCEDUR - LIVE INDEXING AND CACHING
 
MIRROR PAGE: PAGE 60
STATUS: 404 - NOT CORRECT PROCEDUR - LIVE INDEXING AND CACHING
 
MIRROR PAGE: PAGE 8
STATUS: 404 - NOT CORRECT PROCEDUR - LIVE INDEXING AND CACHING

MIRROR PAGE: PAGE 65
STATUS: 404 - NOT CORRECT PROCEDUR - LIVE INDEXING AND CACHING
YAHOO
STATUS: 410 - CORRECT PROCEDUR - DE-INDEXED

URL: INTERNET ARCHIVE - WAYBACK MACHINE web.archive.org - Yahoo mirror - rimosso
STATUS: 410 - CORRECT PROCEDUR - DE-INDEXED

 
PUBLIC LEGAL NOTICE – To the public at large (urbi et orbi)
This article cannot accommodate requests for removal. The present website operates as a legal and academic research archive within the meaning of Article 89 GDPR, and its content is maintained exclusively for purposes of documentation, transparency, and public interest review.

This website is governed by the legal framework set out by its owner. It is not an independent or detached platform: it constitutes an extension of the undersigned as the lawful proprietor of the domain and of the published material “protected under the Italian Constitution".

It is further recalled that, in a previous and specific case, a removal request submitted to National World by the undersigned was refused with the following justification: “However, this so‑called ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ ruling does not apply to news archives.” -



Media Articles and Source‑Code Analyses
This archive includes a full review of the main media outlets that reported on the ESCC Blue Badge case. For each publication, both the article and the source‑code analysis are available to ensure transparency, traceability, and evidentiary accuracy.
These sections provide a structured examination of how each outlet reproduced, amplified, or reframed the original ESCC narrative, and how the underlying HTML/source‑code structure reflects editorial choices, metadata, and indexing behaviour.


📑 Super‑Consolidated Evidentiary Contrast – Institutional Narrative vs Certified and Independent Records
Across the entire evidentiary corpus produced by ESCC — including the witness statements of Mark Jobling, Stephanie Tuohy, Ann Longden, and Mandy Covey, together with the MAR Notes of 27/28 April and 9 May 2022 — a consistent pattern emerges: the institutional narrative is internally aligned yet evidentially fragile, built on subjective impressions, retrospective assumptions, and internal annotations showing indicators of post‑editing. These sources repeatedly assert the existence of multiple enclosures and rely on misidentified medical details, despite the absence of chain‑of‑custody documentation or forensic verification. In sharp contrast, the Voluntary Declaration of the former carer and the certified postal evidence (Royal Mail 10‑gram certificate, tracking WD263867897GB, delivery on 25 April) form a coherent, independently verifiable record confirming that only the appeal letter was enclosed. The independent testimony aligns with immutable physical evidence, while the institutional materials derive from a narrative constructed around a document never sent and inconsistently logged. Taken together, the contrast reveals a structural divergence: the prosecution’s statements appear coordinated but uncorroborated, whereas the independent and certified records remain consistent, traceable, and contestation‑proof.
Procedural Closure – Status Recorded   

This notification was formally issued to all relevant entities, who were offered the opportunity to provide clarifications or counter‑documentation. As of the present date 21 February 2026, no objections, corrections, or alternative factual reconstructions have been submitted. The notification phase is therefore considered procedurally closed. A right of reply remains available, but any late submissions will not alter the factual framework established during the notification period.

Public Disclaimer Published documents disclaimer

Italiano (vincolante)  
Tutti i disclaimer sono raccolti sotto la voce del menu principale “Disclaimer”, in versione bilingue (Italiano vincolante / Inglese di cortesia).
English (courtesy translation)  
All disclaimers are collected under the main menu item “Disclaimer”, in bilingual version (Italian binding / English courtesy).


Italiano (vincolante)  
Per segnalarci una legge citata errata, fare richieste di Rettifica, Replica o Accesso alla documentazione, utilizzate il link dedicato oppure andate alla pagina Contact Us sotto il menu About Us.
English (courtesy translation)  
To report an incorrect legal citation, or to request Rectification, Reply, or Access to documentation, please use the dedicated link or go to the Contact Us page under the About Us menu.



This website uses an internal analytics system which collects data in an aggregated and anonymous form for statistical purposes only, and does not carry out any user profiling.
Back to content
Application icon
The Record Speaks Install this application on your home screen for a better experience
Tap Installation button on iOS then "Add to your screen"

Informativa introduttiva

Questo sito è un archivio giuridico conforme agli Art. 6, 8 e 10 della CEDU, agli Art. 2, 21 e 24 della Costituzione Italiana e all’Art. 89 del GDPR.
(This website is a legal archive compliant with Arts. 6, 8 and 10 of the ECHR, Arts. 2, 21 and 24 of the Italian Constitution, and Art. 89 of the GDPR.)

Consulta le informative complete:
Informativa sui Cookie estesa
Copyright & Legal Notice
Indexing & Transparency
Durata di pubblicazione
Menzione dei soggetti in veste pubblica
Circa l’archivio
Giurisdizione

Continuando la navigazione equivale ad accettazione delle informative proposte.
(By continuing to browse, you agree to the proposed notices.)