On March 27, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled against Italy in a case of Laterza and D’Errico v. Italy (Application No. 30336/22). The court found that Italy had violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

The applicants, who were the son and the wife of the deceased, G. L. died in July 2010 (herein below as “applicants”), have decided to file a petition before the Court which raised concerns regarding a dismissal of the national criminal proceedings. The main issue concerned Article 2 of the ECHR, which states that “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law”.

The applicants particularly emphasized the refusal of national authorities to conduct a proper and detailed investigation to identify those responsible for G.L.'s death. In February 2015, the applicants had submitted a criminal complaint against an unknown person or persons for involuntary manslaughter , disputing that the death had been caused by prolonged exposure to toxic substances at his workplace, more specifically contact with asbestos, related to the steel production.

A medical report, which had been attached to the criminal complaint application, stated that G. L. had been continuously exposed to toxic substances, mainly asbestos and other toxic materials like benzene, hydrocarbons, and dioxins. This exposure was a result of his years of work   at ILVA factory plant in the production of cast iron and steel pipes. The applicants had also attached an expert opinion stating that prolonged exposure to toxic materials could increase the risk of tumour formation. This opinion was supported by ILVA’s polluting activities, as evidenced by the SENTRI (Studio Epidemiologico Nazionale del Territorio e degli Insediamenti Esposti a Rischio Inquinamento) report and an epidemiological study conducted in 2013 by the local health agency in Taranto. The report, based on the data, found a causal link between the activity of the Ilva factory and cases of lung tumours in the province of Taranto. 

As a result of March 19, 2015, the public prosecutor’s office asked the occupational safety and prevention department, in cooperation with the local health authority (SPECAL), to identify companies where G. L. previously worked, to indicate the function he had been performing, provide his medical records, and to investigate the potential criminal liability in connection with the onset of the pathology in dispute. 

The report, completed and submitted in August 2019, concluded that Fintecna (formerly known as Ilva) had failed to provide the information requested by SPESAL regarding G.L.'s years of employment and specific tasks performed at the company-owned plant. The report also noted that data related to his previous employment at the Briotti factory was unavailable due to the factory’s closure in the interim.

While the report acknowledged the ministerial decree of 10 June 2014, where lung tumour was among the pathologies for which prolonged exposure to asbestos was considered highly probable, it also mentioned that G. L. was a former smoker, and he had received compensation for asbestos exposure for the period from 1980 to 1992 at the Briotti Factory. Also, Institut National d’Assurances pour les Accidents du Travail did not recognise the origin of the pathology. Therefore, the SPESAL report concluded that there is no possibility to demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty that illnesses had been occupational in nature or to identify those responsible for breach of safety measures.  

Therefore, on February 7, 2022, the primary judge acknowledged the probability of the occupational origin of G. L. pathology while his work time spent at several factories, dismissed an appeal, and discontinued the further action. 

In this case, the ECtHR sought to understand domestic approaches in determining the starting point and outcome of pathology by examining similar cases, their arguments, and outcomes within the domestic law practice. The court highlighted two relevant rulings/judgments from the Italian Court of Cassation: Judgment No. 34341 and Ruling No. 10209. 

The ECtHR noted that domestic case law applied two theories to establish the relationship between asbestos exposure and disease, as follows:

1. The “inescapable dose” theory, which only considers exposures that are believed to directly cause the onset of the disease.
2. The “correlated dose” theory, which also considers exposures occurring after the disease's onset — during the so-called induction phase — as causally linked, since they may accelerate its progression.

The ECtHR emphasized that, regardless of the theory applied, courts were required to take into account relevant scientific studies and expert reports during the proceedings, acknowledging and addressing them based on the findings of the investigation.

The ECtHR also established that, despite the methodology which had been used in previous domestic judgments, it was compulsory during the trial to take into consideration relevant scientific research and expert report. 

Diverging from previously applied national practices in similar cases, the national authorities failed to consider or incorporate relevant expert reports based on scientific research. The ECtHR found that the investigating judge did not adequately justify the scientific method used, as no scientific explanation or case-specific reasoning was provided to rule out examining the exposure period to harmful substances and its link to G.L.’s condition. Consequently, the ECtHR rejected the Government’s claim that the decision to discontinue the case was based on specific circumstances.

The applicants experienced significant distress due to the refusal of the national authorities to continue the investigation. They also requested the inclusion of expert reports in the trial, which, in their view, could assist in the investigation, but this request was denied. The applicants argued that it was possible to identify the person or persons responsible for their relative’s death. They also contended that the judge responsible for the preliminary investigations had not ruled out the occupational origin of the pathology.

On the other hand, the national authorities stated that the court had conducted a proper and adequate investigation. They further emphasized that, based on the evidence gathered during the investigation, there were no grounds to support the charges. The authorities also highlighted that the judge responsible for the preliminary investigation had diligently examined all the evidence and arguments, ultimately deciding to discontinue the case due to the absence of evidence supporting a causal link between the pathology and G.L.’s work activity.

In its general principles, the ECtHR stated that the State’s obligation to protect the right to life includes not only material obligations but also a positive procedural obligation to ensure the effectiveness and independence of the judicial system. In certain circumstances, Article 2 also requires a mechanism for criminal prosecution in cases where death has been deliberately inflicted. The State is obligated to ensure the existence of an effective judicial system that may be deemed sufficient if it offers a remedy to the victim’s relatives. Article 2 further requires that states make every reasonable effort to determine what happened. Any shortcomings in the investigation may undermine the effectiveness of the proceedings and fail to meet the required standards.

The ECtHR noted that the Court is not required to assess domestic law concerning individual criminal responsibility. Instead, it evaluates whether domestic courts conduct proper and effective investigations, as required by Article 2 of the Convention. The ECtHR highlighted that domestic courts had repeatedly addressed the issue of multiple individuals being responsible for violating safety standards, arriving at different conclusions in each case. In examining previous cases related to this matter, the ECtHR observed a pattern in which domestic prosecutors incorporated expert reports capable of identifying a causal link between prolonged exposure and the onset of the pathology.

Given the incomplete nature of the SPESAL report and the evidence submitted by the applicants, the Court found it necessary to explain why it was allegedly impossible to identify the initial moment in the chain of events. In the absence of such an explanation, the ECtHR stated that further investigation should resume to pursue the finding of additional evidence. This could have clarified, alongside the scientific explanation, the period during which G.L. was exposed to the toxic substance and whether there was a causal link to the onset of his pathology.

National authorities discontinued further investigations, arguing that G.L. had worked in multiple factories where various individuals were responsible for safety standards. Consequently, they claimed it was impossible to identify the initial cause of the pathology or determine who was responsible for G.L.’s death. The decision made it clear that the sole reason for discontinuing the investigation was the difficulty in assigning responsibility to a single individual. However, given that an occupational cause of G.L.’s illness had not been ruled out during the preliminary investigation and that relevant domestic case law supported further inquiry, the ECtHR believed the appropriate course of action would have been to continue the investigation. 

The Court found that the national authorities had not made adequate and effective efforts to establish the facts, as their reasoning for closing the case was insufficient. Therefore, the investigation was rendered ineffective. The ECtHR concluded that Italy had violated Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect. The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction; therefore, there was no basis for awarding them monetary compensation in this respect.