A Timeline of Violence and Systemic Failures

The application concerns Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the context of gender violence and harassment. According to the complaint, Ms. P.P. endured severe emotional and physical abuse over several years. She reported three major incidents, including being physically assaulted and thrown off her bicycle in March 2008, forcefully dragged into a car in October 2008, which resulted in visible physical injuries and shock, and another assault in November 2008 in which A.B. grabbed her by the hair in public. These events were compounded by continuous harassment, such as stalking, excessive messaging (over 2,500 messages), surveillance, and coercive control.

Despite filing a criminal complaint in December 2009 and providing detailed evidence and witnesses, law enforcement and judicial authorities took minimal immediate action. Notably, the public prosecutor did not even interview the applicant, and no substantive evidence, such as phone records or messages, was collected. The investigation was registered only in March 2010. She complained that the criminal investigation had been ineffective and that the procedural safeguards had not been observed. Since the offences had been declared time-barred, the authorities had not acted with the requisite promptness and diligence.

It was only in May 2013 – more than three years after the facts were reported – that the prosecutor ordered A.B. to stand trial under Article 612 bis of the Italian Criminal Code, which covers harassment. Importantly, since this provision was not enacted until February 2009, earlier offences could not legally qualify as harassment.

Court Proceedings

The domestic criminal trial, beginning in November 2013, culminated in a January 2016 verdict by the Court of Pisa, which acquitted A.B. The court controversially reasoned that the relationship between the applicant and A.B. had been “toxic and tormented,” asserting that the applicant's continued interaction with A.B. weakened her claims of sustained harassment. It concluded that the psychological elements of the offence had not been proven.

In 2017, on appeal, the Florence Court of Appeal partially upheld the acquittal, citing statute of limitations. It determined that only acts committed after February 2009 were prosecutable and that even those were now time-barred. Nevertheless, the court did acknowledge A.B.’s responsibility to compensate the applicant, transferring the matter to a civil court.

The Supreme Court, in 2019 – nearly a decade after the original complaint – reiterated the statute of limitations and remanded the civil liability decision to the lower court for proper reasoning. This led to a separate civil action brought by Ms. P.P. in 2019, seeking damages for psychological and financial harm, lost income, medical expenses, and harm to her dignity and personal data.

In a 2024 judgment, the Florence Civil Court of Appeal awarded her €268,403.26 in damages. The court recognised that A.B.’s behaviour had inflicted both temporary and permanent psychological damage due to sustained intimidation and emotional abuse. However, this judgment is not final and is still open to appeal.

Legal and Institutional Context: A System Under Reform

At the core of the case is a broader critique of the Italian legal framework for domestic violence. The ECtHR referenced previous rulings (e.g., Landi v. Italy, M.S. v. Italy - cf. topic in Yearbook 2022) and noted legislative efforts since 2021 to reform Italy’s approach to limitation periods in criminal proceedings, particularly involving serious offences like domestic violence.

Key changes include proposals to extend statute limitations after first-instance convictions, the inclusion of “code rouge” offences in extended limitation lists, and heightened penalties for acts committed in the context of intimate partner abuse.

Internationally, the Istanbul Convention, effective in Italy since August 2014, mandates the timely and adequate investigation and prosecution of domestic violence cases. In its assessment, the Court emphasised that civil remedies, though providing financial compensation, do not substitute the State’s obligation to effectively prosecute and prevent impunity in serious human rights violations such as domestic violence.

Alleged Violation of Article 3 of the Convention

The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective and timely criminal investigation into domestic violence allegations against her ex-partner. She argued that the delay led to the offences being time-barred and her former partner escaping punishment, constituting a breach of procedural obligations under Article 3 ECHR. While Italy may argue that civil redress was ultimately provided, the ECtHR stressed that such remedies do not absolve the State from its procedural obligations under Article 3. The government claimed domestic remedies were not exhausted, but the Court found that civil proceedings could not replace the need for a proper criminal investigation. Therefore, the Court declared the application admissible.

The ECtHR recognised the physical, as well as psychological consequences of violence aimed at Ms. P.P. Referring to similar cases, the Court clearly stated that domestic violence can also include harassment, threats, and fear of further aggression. The ECtHR assessed the situation taking into consideration the case of M.S. v. Italy (cf. Yearbook 2022). In similar circumstances, it is very important for domestic courts to intervene as quickly as possible. The Italian authorities did not act promptly when it came to Ms. P.P.. It took 6 years to issue the first instance judgment. After a year, A.B. was acquitted for acts committed before February 2009, and the offences allegedly committed after that date became time-barred. 

All that reveals a lack of willingness of the state authorities to hold the offender accountable for his actions. The Italian authorities did not act with sufficient promptitude and reasonable diligence, failing to provide a proportionate response in this serious matter. The ECtHR is very clear about the state’s duties to prevent such actions. The Court stresses that a State must organise its judicial system so that it can meet its obligations under Article 3 ECHR and not tolerate acts of violence. Taking this into account, the Court concluded that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR in its procedural aspect.

The applicant also made a claim for an award of a sum for non-pecuniary damage suffered. Due to the fact that Ms. P.P. did not receive any sum yet, the Court decided to award her 10,000 EUR, which should be paid within 3 months from the final judgment.