CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mars 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Legal summary March 2025 Laterza and D'Errico v. Italy - 30336/22 Judgment 27.3.2025 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-1 Effective investigation Discontinuation of criminal proceedings concerning individual’s death from a possible work-related condition, following national authorities’ refusal to continue the investigation: violation Facts – The applicants were the son and wife of G.L., who died in July 2010 of a pulmonary tumour. Between 1980 and 2004 G.L. had been employed by a company specialising in steel production and processing. In February 2015 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint for involuntary manslaughter against a person or persons unknown, arguing that G.L.’s death had been caused by his prolonged exposure in the workplace to toxic substances, including asbestos, released in the course of steel production. In March 2015 the public prosecutor’s office asked the occupational safety and prevention department within the local health authority (SPESAL) to ascertain which companies G.L. had worked for, indicate what his duties had entailed, submit a copy of his medical file and investigate any potential criminal liability related to the onset or deterioration of the condition in question. In August 2019 the SPESAL submitted its report, which concluded that it was not possible, on the basis of its research, to demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty that the illness had been occupational in nature or to identify those responsible for any breaches of safety measures, given the paucity of documents obtained. In February 2022 the investigating judge – while holding that, in spite of G.L.’s smoking habit, an occupational cause for his multifactorial condition could not be ruled out – dismissed an appeal by the applicants and discontinued the proceedings. Law – Article 2: In many other proceedings concerning the criminal liability of managers of factories in which workers had been exposed to asbestos, the domestic courts had already addressed the question of multiple individuals having potential liability for violations of safety regulations. They had adopted different approaches regarding the possibility of determining, in each case, the starting-point of the illness and, accordingly, of ruling on the liability of the individual responsible for compliance with safety measures at that given time. The Court’s analysis of the above case-law indicated that, whatever methodology was adopted, in identifying the individual’s exposure to the harmful substance with a causal link to his or her condition it was incumbent on the trial court to take account of the relevant scientific research, as brought to its attention through the expert reports drawn up in the course of the proceedings; to take a position on them; and to apply those principles to the facts of the case at hand, as ascertained by the investigation. In the present case, however, the criminal proceedings instituted by the applicants had been discontinued because it had proved impossible to determine the starting-point (“initial event”) in the causal process, or to overcome that obstacle by using the evidence referred to in the applicants’ appeal, given “the impossibility, in a situation where multiple individuals had been in charge, of determining the exact period during which the so-called trigger dose had been absorbed by the worker, and – in consequence – of identifying the individual with safety responsibility for the source of that risk during that specific period ...”. However, contrary to the recommended domestic judicial practice, the national authorities’ conclusion had not relied on any expert report based on relevant scientific research. Nor had it been based on any scientific explanation, or circumstance specific to the case in hand, that would have precluded an assessment of the relevant period of exposure to the harmful substances, with a view to ascertaining a causal link with G.L.’s condition. The Court therefore found that the investigating judge had not sufficiently explained the approach followed for the purposes of determining the scientific method to be used in her decision. Equally, the Court was unable to accept the Government’s argument that the discontinuance decision had been based on the specific circumstances of the present case. In that connection, in their appeal against the decision to discontinue the proceedings, the applicants had requested that scientific and epidemiological reports drawn up in similar criminal proceedings be included in the case file, and that an expert report on G.L.’s medical history and condition be prepared. However, although the investigating judge had found that the case file did not enable the initial event in the causal process to be determined, she had rejected the request that further evidence be obtained in order to clarify that issue, and had ordered no further investigations. Moreover, the report submitted by the SPESAL referred to several gaps in G.L.’s work record, resulting in particular from the fact that it had been impossible to access documents that might have clarified this aspect of the case. In view of the incomplete nature of the SPESAL report and the evidence adduced by the applicants – to which no reference was made in the decision to discontinue the proceedings – the Court considered that it would have been desirable to provide an explanation of the scientific and/or factual reasons for the alleged inability to determine the initial event in the causal process. In the absence of any such explanations, investigations ought to have been continued with a view to gathering additional evidence, so as to ascertain, in line with the particular scientific theory chosen by the courts, the period during which G.L. had been exposed to the harmful substance with a causal link to his condition, and to identify the individuals responsible for safety measures at the given time. In the present case, however, the decision to discontinue the proceedings had been based on circular reasoning, according to which, since multiple individuals had been responsible for safety measures, the initial event in the causal process had to be identified; however, precisely because multiple individuals had been involved, it had proved impossible to identify that event. It was thus clear from the contested decision that, as a result of the difficulty in identifying an individual to whom the causal link could be attributed, the circumstance relied on to justify discontinuing the proceedings was the fact that G.L. had worked under the authority of multiple individuals. Nonetheless, the Court considered that in such a context, having regard to the relevant domestic case-law and the fact that an occupational cause for G.L.’s condition had not been ruled out at the outset, the court of substantive jurisdiction could have ordered further investigations to ascertain the possible existence of a causal link between exposure to the harmful substances and the deceased’s illness, with a view to identifying those responsible for any breaches of safety measures. Without speculating on the outcome of a further investigation and, in particular, on the investigative measures that ought to have been ordered, the above considerations and the fact that the arguments relied on by the Government were not decisive enabled the Court to conclude that the domestic courts had not made sufficient efforts to establish the facts of the case, and that the decision to close the investigation had not been properly reasoned. It followed that the investigation had not been effective. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .