Introduction

In 2025, Italy continues to occupy a significant position in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, both in terms of the number of pending applications and with regard to the types of violations found. This article analyses Italy’s position before the Court, with particular attention to both the contentious phase and the execution of judgments. Through the analysis of official statistical data and the information contained in the Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the article aims to highlight the main trends in litigation, the most recurrent types of violations, and Italy’s performance in implementing the Court’s decisions.

Statistical overview of Italian litigation before the ECtHR IN 2025

Italy confirms its position as one of the most frequently litigated States before the European Court of Human Rights. In 2025, pending applications concerning Italy amounted to 2,787 out of a total of 53,464 cases before the Court. Only Turkey (18,464), the Russian Federation (7,177), Ukraine (4,004), and Poland (3,517) registered higher numbers of pending applications. Cases involving Italy represent 5.3% of the total, confirming its role among the States with the highest litigation volume.

In the Court’s official statistical analysis, Italy—together with Turkey and Poland—is identified as one of the countries contributing most to the overall increase in the Court’s workload. Between 2024 and 2025, a 10% increase in new cases allocated to judicial formations was recorded, rising from 28,800 to 31,800. Although the vast majority of these applications are assigned to a single judge and therefore likely to be declared inadmissible, they nonetheless represent a significant administrative burden.

However, when assessed in relation to population size, Italy does not rank among the most critical States. The ratio of applications allocated to a judicial formation in 2025 amounts to 0.41 per 10,000 inhabitants. This reflects a relatively moderate level of litigation, particularly when compared with the overall average of 0.38 per 10,000 inhabitants.

It should nevertheless be noted that Italy’s figure remains significantly higher than that of other large Western European States with comparable populations, such as France (0.13), Spain (0.15), Germany (0.07), and the United Kingdom (0.04).

As regards the composition of pending applications, 2025 data show a significant differentiation across procedural stages. In particular, 1,755 applications are awaiting initial examination, of which 261 have been allocated to single-judge or Chamber formations and 1,494 to Chamber or Committee formations. In addition, 967 applications have been communicated to the Italian Government (State Legal Service), thereby entering the adversarial phase. A further 32 applications are at the stage where a governmental response is awaited, in procedures that reflect an implicit acknowledgment of a violation and a possible willingness to reach an extrajudicial settlement.

As for procedural outcomes, in 2025, 33 applications were declared admissible, while 1,531 were declared inadmissible or struck out, confirming the central role of the admissibility filter in the Convention system.

With regard to cases resolved through friendly settlements or unilateral declarations, these amounted to 52 in 2025. Since 2023, when 411 cases were resolved extrajudicially, a declining trend has been observed. A detailed analysis reveals a marked reduction in unilateral declarations, which fell from 247 in 2023 to 29 in 2025, as well as a similarly significant, albeit less pronounced, decrease in friendly settlements, which declined from 164 to 23 over the same period. These data indicate a growing tendency of the Italian State, in recent years, to prefer substantive litigation over systematic recourse to amicable settlements or ex ante compensatory solutions.

Types of violations found against Italy

In 2025, the European Court of Human Rights delivered 65 judgments involving Italy; in 62 of these cases, at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights or its Protocols was found. This reflects an extremely high incidence of findings of violations in cases concerning Italy.

Most judgments concerned Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), which was found to have been violated in 50 cases. In a significant proportion of these (38 cases), the violation concerned the non-enforcement of final domestic judicial decisions. In addition, 9 cases concerned other aspects of the right to a fair trial, while 3 cases involved excessive length of proceedings. Overall, these figures reveal persistent structural deficiencies in the implementation of fair trial guarantees, particularly at the enforcement stage, where non-execution of final judgments undermines the effectiveness of judicial protection.

A further significant area concerns violations of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), which account for 28 cases and are often linked to structural issues relating to the enforcement of domestic decisions or interference with property rights.

Although limited in number (5 cases), violations of Article 3 of the Convention— especially the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment—are of particular significance. As an absolute right, Article 3 raises fundamental concerns regarding human dignity and highlights structural deficiencies in detention conditions or the treatment of vulnerable individuals.

Report of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

The analysis of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Italy cannot be separated from the issue of their execution, which falls under the supervisory system of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. A particularly relevant contribution in this regard is the 2025 Annual Report on the supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the Court.

In 2025, 75 new Italy-related cases were transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for supervision, showing a slight decrease compared to 76 in 2024 and 87 in 2023.

At the end of 2025, 318 cases remained pending, of which only 78 were classified as leading cases and 240 as repetitive cases. The persistent predominance of repetitive cases highlights the difficulty of definitively addressing underlying structural problems, revealing limited effectiveness in removing the root causes of violations. The system therefore appears more efficient in managing the consequences of violations than in preventing them.

Of the 78 leading cases under supervision, 27 were subject to enhanced supervision and 51 to standard supervision. A significant proportion of these cases are long-standing: 12 leading cases under enhanced supervision and 24 under standard supervision have been pending for more than five years. This data highlights that many of the issues addressed by the Court in relation to Italy are structural in nature and require long-term interventions in order to ensure the effective execution of judgments.

During 2025, Italy submitted 3 action plans, 17 action reports, and 3 additional communications. Nevertheless, administrative and political difficulties persist: 10 cases remain without an initial action plan despite the expiry of deadlines, and 18 cases are awaiting updates, including 6 with overdue deadlines.

As regards just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, the European Court of Human Rights may award compensation to applicants in order to redress the damage suffered as a result of a violation. In 2025, payments were fully executed in 83 cases, whereas in 80 cases execution remained pending for more than six months. This indicates a generally high level of compliance, albeit with continuing delays in implementation. 

In 2025, the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Council of Europe (DEJ) conducted its first official visit to Italy focused on monitoring implementation. The delegation engaged in structured dialogue with national authorities, including governmental, administrative and judicial representatives, as well as the President of the Court of Cassation. The visit allowed for an in-depth assessment of execution practices, persistent challenges, and future prospects, with particular attention to complex cases, including the pilot judgment Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy concerning the “Terra dei Fuochi”. The visit highlighted the importance of strengthening domestic implementation capacities and consolidating dialogue between national and European levels.

The Committee of Ministers highlighted three Italian cases as particularly significant in terms of progress in execution:

• Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy - concerning the illegal disposal of waste in the so-called “Terra dei Fuochi” area in Campania. The Italian Government introduced urgent legislative measures to strengthen criminal legislation on environmental offences, enhance the protection of public health and the environment, and restore legality. The main developments include the reorganisation of waste-related offences, the introduction of new offences differentiated according to the hazardousness of waste, and increased penalties for unauthorised waste management, illicit trafficking, and illegal waste burning. 
• Trapani v. Italy - concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings. Between 2021 and 2024, legislative and organisational reforms were implemented to improve the efficiency of the courts, reduce pending cases, and shorten decision-making times both at first instance and on appeal, with progress also observed in the Court of Cassation. Supervision of the case was downgraded from enhanced to standard, reflecting a consolidated improvement, albeit still requiring continued monitoring. 
• Darboe and Camara v. Italy - concerning unaccompanied migrant minors and their placement in adequate reception facilities. The number of places in dedicated reception structures for minors has been increased, procedural safeguards in age assessment have been strengthened, the presumption of minority has been ensured, and legal guardians are appointed in a timely manner. The Committee reiterated the need for the uniform application of Law No. 47/2017 across the national territory and for the guarantee that minors are accommodated in appropriate facilities. 

In 2025, 67 cases concerning Italy were closed, including 5 “leading cases” and 62 repetitive cases. With regard to the latter, the Committee of Ministers considered that no further individual measures were required, indicating the consolidation of the execution measures adopted. Among the closed leading cases, 4 had been under enhanced supervision and 1 under standard supervision. 

Particularly noteworthy is the group of applications concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, within which structural measures had been adopted with a view to reducing the judicial backlog and shortening the average duration of proceedings. The Committee assessed these interventions as capable of achieving a condition of “self-sustainability” of the system, understood as the capacity of the legal order to continue improving its efficiency autonomously, without the need for further extraordinary supervisory measures. 

Overall, in 2025 Italy remains among the States with the highest number of leading cases under enhanced supervision, accounting for approximately 8% of the total, confirming the persistence of systemic issues within the execution framework.

Conclusion

In 2025, Italian litigation before the European Court of Human Rights confirmed both the quantitative and qualitative relevance of Italy within the Convention system. At the same time, the execution phase shows progress in compliance with Convention obligations, alongside persistent challenges relating to the timeliness of payments and the existence of structural problems. The high number of leading cases under enhanced supervision further reveals the systemic nature of many violations. Overall, the 2025 data from the Court and the Committee of Ministers illustrate an ongoing tension between formal compliance with the obligations arising under the Convention and the effective protection of human rights.