On 5 of June 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled against Italy in the case of Ciccone v. Italy (Application No. 21492/17) finding that Italy violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

The applicant, a radiologist, was charged with involuntary manslaughter after failing to diagnose a femur fracture on a patient admitted to hospital on 9 of November 2008. He was discharged the same day but was later readmitted to another hospital on 27 of November and underwent an operation. The patient died the next day. 

During the first instance proceedings before the Court of Catanzaro, expert witnesses’ opinions were presented and concluded that the cause of death could be either neurological or pulmonary. The Court acknowledged the diagnosis error but found no conclusive evidence that could establish a link between the missed diagnosis and the patient’s death. The applicant was acquitted. 

Following this, appeal proceedings were initiated by the prosecution to challenge the previous ruling. After re-evaluation of the medical report, the appellate court concluded that the delayed diagnosis likely contributed to the development of the pulmonary condition (a possible cause of death). After the ruling, the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation, claiming that the appellate court had not reheard the expert witnesses who were presented during the first trial. The Court rejected the appeal, stating that the appellate court had no obligation to hold a re-hearing of expert witnesses and no new hearing was needed. 

By using the customary method of reviewing the applicable domestic law and relevant case law, the ECtHR recalled several principles established by the Italian Court of Cassation, in particular that the appellate judge may not overturn an acquittal without re-hearing witnesses whose statements were decisive at the first instance (Article 603, paragraph 3-bis, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure).

The ECtHR rejected the stance of the Italian Government that the re-hearing of testimonies applied only to the witnesses, not the experts. The Court emphasised that the term “witness” under Article 6 of the ECHR should be interpreted broadly so as to also include experts, especially when oral statements explain or supplement written expert reports.  Because expert witness testimonies were critical to the acquittal of the applicant and not merely a restatement of written evidence, the ECtHR concluded that Italy violated Article 6 of the Convention. 

The ECtHR held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction and ordered the responding state to pay 5,001.17 euros for costs and expenses. 

This judgment emphasises the importance of procedural fairness in criminal appeals, with particular attention to the cases where an acquittal is overturned. Besides this, the ECtHR highlights the need for a broad interpretation of the term “witness” by member states.