CASE OF ADDONIZIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

    FIRST SECTION CASE OF ADDONIZIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY (Applications nos. 67766/11 and 482/13)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 June 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Addonizio and Others v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Erik Wennerström, President,  Raffaele Sabato,  Artūrs Kučs, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos. 67766/11 and 482/13) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 8 and Article 13 of the Convention to the Italian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia, Avvocato dello Stato, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 13 May 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The applications concern the opening and operation of a landfill site in the municipality of Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte, in the proximity of the applicants’ homes, in the context of the extraordinary measures to overcome the waste disposal emergency in the Campania region. 2.  The main circumstances concerning waste management in Campania from 1994 to 2020 are described in Di Sarno and Others v. Italy (no. 30765/08, §§ 10-18, 20-34 and 36-51, 10 January 2012) and in Locascia and Others v. Italy (no. 35648/10, §§ 5-17, 19 October 2023). 3.  From 11 February 1994 to 31 December 2009 a state of emergency (stato di emergenza) was in place in the Campania region because of serious problems with municipal solid waste disposal. 4.  Legislative Decree no. 61 of 11 May 2007, converted into Law no. 87 of 5 July 2007, authorised the creation of landfill sites in some municipalities, among which was Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte, with a special derogation from the statutory environmental protection and health and safety standards. 5.  The new landfill was to be realised in the proximity of the top of a ridge, opposite the town centre of Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte. Two other landfills were already present in the area. The first landfill was built in 1995 by the municipality and ceased to be operational in 2002. It was one of the sites referred to by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgments of 26 April 2007 (case C-135/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:250) and 2 December 2014 (case C-196/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2407), which concerned unlawful landfills in the country and the failure by Italy to clean them up. A second landfill was built in 2001 by the Campania region to overcome the waste disposal crisis, which had intensified during that period. 6.  By three orders adopted as from 19 February 2008, the deputy commissioner entrusted with the management of the waste crisis requested the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (“the ARPAC”) to verify preexisting contamination in the area. He also approved the project of the landfill, assigned the task of preparing the executive project, including the drawing up of the environmental compatibility report, and ordered the preparation of a remediation project for the two existing landfills. Thirdly, he approved the executive project for the construction of the landfill. 7.  In April 2008 the construction work on the landfill began. 8.  On an unspecified date the municipality of Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte challenged the above-mentioned orders before the Regional Administrative Court, requesting their annulment and a stay of execution. 9.  The Regional Administrative Court dismissed the municipality’s request for a stay of execution. 10.  On 15 May 2008 the municipality lodged an application for interim measures with the Naples District Court under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the suspension of the construction of the landfill. It claimed that the area was not suitable, arguing, inter alia, that (i) the test results carried out by the ARPAC had proved that there was preexisting contamination at the site; (ii) the area had been used for agricultural activity and animal farming; and (iii) the area was particularly prone to landslides, which had already occurred, and to high-intensity seismic events. The municipality claimed that the authorities had been aware of these circumstances. 11.  By a decision of 27 May 2008, the District Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter. 12.  On 21 May 2008 the Campania Regional Council confirmed the environmental compatibility of the project, provided that certain measures were implemented. It agreed with a favourable opinion of the Committee for Environmental Impact Assessment. The prescriptions concerned, first, the stabilisation of the slope and the remediation of existing landfills and the surrounding area and, second, the mitigation of the project’s environmental impact. 13.  The landfill began operating in June 2008. It was divided into two basins: lot 1 and the east basin, which was in turn divided into three sub-lots, lots II, III and IV. The facility was intended to dispose of both general municipal and specific non-hazardous waste, and it covered a total area of 135,000 square meters and had a total capacity of 840,000 cubic meters. 14.  On 16 August 2008 a committee of local residents lodged a criminal complaint, claiming that there had been irregularities in the setting up and operation of the landfill in issue. 15.  Criminal proceedings (R.G. GIP 3152/10) were opened against the managers of the company responsible for the landfill’s operation in respect of a failure to implement the emergency safety measures required to prevent leachate leakage, ensure soil stability and protect the environment. 16.  By a decision of 18 March 2011, the Benevento preliminary investigations judge (giudice delle indagini preliminari) ordered the preventive seizure of the landfill, allowing only the activities necessary to ensure the safety of the site. It was noted that a leachate leakage had been identified from lots II, III and IV of the landfill “capable of polluting the ground and subsoil” and that the necessary measures to prevent environmental pollution had not been taken. 17.  In a report of 5 February 2013, the parliamentary commission of inquiry into unlawful activities related to the waste cycle (“the Parliamentary Commission”) noted that the Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte landfill was located on landslide-prone ground, near a built-up area downstream of the landfill. The Commission observed that the residents of Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte had been living under the constant threat that the landfill might slide at any moment, overwhelming the town. Official information had shown that hydrogeological instability and landslides had affected the landfill since the early stages of its construction. Specifically, between 11 and 22 August 2008 cracks had appeared on the embankments and at the bottom of lot IV owing to the landslide phenomena. In October 2008 additional piles had been installed downstream to prevent further landslides. The measure proved insufficient and further projects were drawn up, but were never approved. 18.  The Parliamentary Commission reported that the choice of location for the site had been made without due consideration of the unstable nature of the area, which had been well-known. In January 2011 a static testing report deemed the landfill unfit for a certification testing (non collaudabile). The Commission concluded that the landfill had been constructed on a completely unsuitable site, characterised by landslides which were difficult to contain except through complex and costly interventions. 19.  As regards the two older inoperative landfills (see paragraph 5 above), the Parliamentary Commission stated that they had been subjected to preventive seizure in the context of criminal proceedings for the unlawful disposal of leachate which had spilled onto the ground and the failure to implement all the emergency safety measures. Since 2010 the ARPAC had detected leachate leaks from the two older landfills. 20.  By an order of 9 November 2017 the Benevento District Court lifted the seizure of a part of the new landfill (see paragraph 16 above). The court noted that, from a report by the ARPAC of 11 October 2017, it appeared that (i) in lots I and II of the landfill, no elements of contamination directly attributable to the leachate leakage had been detected, therefore the disposal activity could be resumed on the condition that safety measures were taken; and (ii) lots III and IV had displayed clearly critical issues and, even if the nature of the pollution of the groundwater had not constituted a health and environmental risk factor, a plan for the assessment of the contamination was necessary. The court lifted the seizure of lots I and II. 21.  No information has been provided on the outcome of the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 15 above). 22.  The Government submitted that since the seizure of 18 March 2011, the landfill had not been operational, and the area had been subjected to a monitoring plan by the managing company. They also submitted that an environmental characterisation plan and a site-specific risk analysis had been approved in 2018 and 2019 respectively, but they did not submit supporting documents. 23.  According to the results of testing carried out by the managing company between December 2023 and February 2024 and reported by the ARPAC (report no. 1045 of 8 April 2025), the groundwater was found to be contaminated mainly by sulphates, mercury and manganese. 24.  On the date of the latest observations received by the Court, the approval of a project to ensure the operational safety of the landfill (MISO - Messa in Sicurezza Operativa) was underway. 25.  The Government submitted that the permanent decontamination of the municipal landfill, which was contiguous to the landfill in issue, had been successfully performed and that the EU infringement procedure against Italy concerning waste management had come to a close. No supporting documents have been filed in this regard. 26.  Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained that in failing to take the requisite protective measures to prevent, minimise or eliminate the effects of the pollution and safety risk from the landfill, the State authorities had caused serious damage to the environment, endangering their health and well-being and preventing them from enjoying their homes. They further complained that the authorities had failed to inform them of the risks to their health to which they had been exposed by living in the area surrounding the landfill. 27.  The applicants also alleged a breach of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS28.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. preliminary objections29.  The Government argued that the applicants lacked victim status in that the allegations concerning the individual damage suffered by them were generic and vague. 30.  The Court observes that the documents provided by the parties show that hydrogeological instability and groundwater contamination has affected the landfill since the early stages of its construction and operation. This has resulted in considerable distress and potential danger to citizens’ safety. In particular, the Parliamentary Commission observed that the citizens of Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte lived under the constant threat that the landfill might slide at any moment onto the town (see paragraph 17 above). Moreover, the preventive seizure order of the landfill referred to a leachate leakage “capable of polluting the ground and subsoil” (see paragraph 16 above). 31.  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the environmental damage complained of by the applicants living in the municipality of Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte is likely to have directly affected their personal well-being (see Locascia and Others v. Italy, no. 35648/10, § 94, 19 October 2023). It therefore rejects the Government’s objection in relation to these applicants. 32.  However, the Court notes that the applicants listed in the appendix under numbers 13, 16, 38, 112-16, 118-22, 125-33 and 136-38 lived in a municipality other than Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte and that they have not presented any evidence capable of showing that they were affected by the situation complained of (ibid., § 95). The Court therefore accepts the Government’s objection in respect of these applicants and, consequently, their complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. 33.  Any mention of “the applicants” in the remainder of this judgment must be understood as referring only to the remaining applicants living in the municipality of Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte. 34.  The Government further argued that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies. They raised the same arguments as those in Locascia and Others (cited above, §§ 99-102), in which the Court rejected the objection. In the present case, the Court finds no argument capable of convincing it to reach a different conclusion (ibid., §§ 107-13). Moreover, in so far as the Government referred to the possibility that the applicants could have lodged a public class action under Legislative Decree no. 198/2009, the Court notes that the Government limited themselves to stating that this avenue existed without, however, explaining how this remedy would have operated in practice and how it would have been capable of addressing the applicants’ complaints (see Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy, nos. 51567/14 and 3 others, § 276, 30 January 2025). The Court therefore considers that this objection should be rejected. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION35.  The general principles concerning environmental damage that may adversely affect human well-being have been recently summarised in Locascia and Others (cited above, §§ 120-25). 36.  As regards the substantive aspect of Article 8 of the Convention, the Government contended that the applicants’ exposure to pollution had lasted for a limited period, corresponding to the time the landfill had been operational, that is, from June 2008 until 18 March 2011, and that the scientific information on the potential effects on public health was generic. They further argued that the conduct of the public authorities had been justified by the need to address the risk faced by the entire regional population and that a proper balance had been struck between the competing interests. 37.  The applicants maintained their complaints. 38.  The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 39.  The Court observes that the documents provided by the parties show the existence of environmental pollution and serious safety risks which were the result of inadequate planning and management of the landfill site by the public authorities. 40.  Since 1994 the area was used for waste disposal through the creation of two landfills sites, which, at the time of the opening of the new landfill in 2008, ceased to operate and required security and clean-up measures. Furthermore, despite the area being known to be landslide-prone, the construction of the new waste disposal plant was authorised, thereby creating the conditions for worsening the environmental damage. Notwithstanding the fact that the landfill had been affected by hydrogeological instability and landslides since the early stages of its construction in 2008, it was operative until its preventive seizure in 2011. The Court draws attention, in particular, to the fact that the report of the Parliamentary Commission and the findings of the national courts describe a long pattern of problems in planning, managerial and monitoring activities and considered the landfill area a risk to the public health and security of the citizens of Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte (see paragraphs 15 and 16-20 above). 41.  The Court further observes that the closure of the landfill site did not prevent it from continuing to contaminate the area, thereby harming the environment and endangering human health (see paragraphs 20-23 above). In the meantime, the Italian government’s approach to tackling pollution in the present case has also been marked by delays and inconsistent enforcement. While the Court takes note of the Government’s allegation concerning the permanent remediation and securing of the older municipal landfill, it observes that such result was achieved with a considerable delay. Moreover, as of the date of the latest observations received by the Court, the procedure which was aimed at securing and cleaning up the new landfill site had not yet been implemented. 42.  While the Court cannot conclude to what extent the applicants’ lives or health were specifically threatened by the pollution from and hydrogeological instability of the landfill site, it considers that the documents filed by the parties demonstrate that a situation of environmental pollution and serious safety risk in the municipality of Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte was ongoing and endangered their health. 43.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the national authorities failed to take all the measures necessary to ensure the effective protection of the right of the people concerned to respect for their private life. 44.  Therefore, the fair balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the applicants’ interest in not suffering serious environmental harm which might affect their well-being and private life and, on the other, the interests of society as a whole, was upset in the present case. 45.  Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in its substantive aspect. 46.  With regard to the procedural aspect of Article 8 and the complaint alleging a failure to disseminate information enabling the applicants to assess the risk to which they were exposed, the Court notes that the environmental situation of the landfill site was made public by the Parliamentary Commission in 2013. Information on critical aspects of the landfill was contained in the Campania Regional Council’s declaration of environmental compatibility of the project of 2008 and in the seizure orders issued by the judicial authorities in 2011 and 2017. It therefore considers that the Italian authorities fulfilled their obligation to inform the persons concerned, including the applicants, of the potential risks to which they were exposed by continuing to reside in the area. Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINT47.  The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 48.  The applicants claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 30,803.49 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 49.  The Government objected. 50.  In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the violation of the Convention it has found constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. 51.  In respect of the costs incurred before the Court, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants, jointly, the sum of EUR 10,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,      Decides to join the applications;     Declares the applications inadmissible in respect of the applicants listed under numbers 13, 16, 38, 112-16, 118-22, 125-33 and 136-38 in the appendix;     Declares the remaining applicants’ complaint concerning Article 8 in its substantive aspect admissible, and their complaint under Article 8 in its procedural aspect inadmissible;     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in its substantive aspect;     Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;     Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the remaining applicants;     Holds  that the respondent State is to pay to the remaining applicants jointly, within three months, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses;  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the remaining applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 June 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Liv Tigerstedt Erik Wennerström  Deputy Registrar President     APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location 1. 67766/11 Addonizio and Others v. Italy 25/10/2011 (1) Paolina ADDONIZIO 1945 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (2) Erminia Maria ADDONIZIO 1965 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (3) Silvana ADDONIZIO 1971 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (4) Rosaria Cristina Palma ANTONUCCI 1957 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (5) Maria BARTOLO 1947 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (6) Antonietta BELMONTE 1949 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (7) Elinane BOLENAGE 1969 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (8) Filomena BOZZA 1990 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (9) Nicola BOZZA 1964 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (10) Maria CACCIALINO 1951 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (11) Maria Rosaria CECERE 1931 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (12) Rosa Isabella CECERE 1930 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (13) Angelo Raffaele CHIUCHIOLO 1947 Benevento Italian (14) Arcangelo CHIUCHIOLO 1945 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (15) Costanzo CHIUCHIOLO 1942 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (16) Crescenzo CHIUCHIOLO 1951 San Giorgio Del Sannio Italian (17) Massimo CHIUCHIOLO 1976 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (18) Maria Carmela CILIBERTI 1960 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (19) Lorella Lucia D’ALESSANDRO 1962 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (20) Filomena D’ANGELIS 1944 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (21) Giovanni DE SIMONE 1991 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (22) Massimo DE SIMONE 1965 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (23) Simona DE SIMONE 1990 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (24) Tommaso DE SIMONE 1966 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (25) Giuseppe DI DONATO 1964 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (26) Pasquale DI DONATO 1966 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (27) Raffaella DIGITALE 1935 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (28) Gabriella Mihaela EDU 1988 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Romanian (29) Pavel Daniel EDU 1983 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Romanian (30) Anna Maria FARESE 1957 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (31) Filomena FRATTOLILLO 1954 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (32) Antonio FUCCILLO 1939 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (33) Arturo FUCCILLO 1922 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (34) Arturo FUCCILLO 1986 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (35) Assunta FUCCILLO 1986 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (36) Carmela FUCCILLO 1969 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (37) Cristina FUCCILLO 1989 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (38) Filippo FUCCILLO 1949 Benevento Italian (39) Giuliana FUCCILLO 1963 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (40) Luciano FUCCILLO 1953 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (41) Natascia FUCCILLO 1991 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (42) Pompilia FUCCILLO 1966 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (43) Leonida GIANGRANDE 1972 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (44) Alfredo GIANGREGORIO 1967 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (45) Giuseppina GIANNITTO 1979 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (46) Alberto IACOVIELLO 1987 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (47) Federica IACOVIELLO 1991 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (48) Maria Pia IACOVIELLO 1985 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (49) Valentina IACOVIELLO 1986 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (50) Stefania IGNOZZA 1969 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (51) Rosetta LA ROCCA 1968 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (52) Carla LAURENTI 1980 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (53) Giuseppina LUONGO 1929 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (54) Lina Barbara LUONGO 1982 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (55) Fiorenzo LUPONE 1954 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (56) Giovanni MAZZEO 1977 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (57) Maria MAZZOCCA 1962 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (58) Matteo MAZZOCCA 1995 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (59) Maurizio MAZZOCCA 1957 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (60) Deborah MAZZONE 1975 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (61) Gian Carlo MAZZONE 1976 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (62) Luigina MAZZONE 1962 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (63) Natalino Giuseppe MAZZONE 1947 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (64) Filomena MEROLA 1935 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (65) Addolorata NEGRO 1980 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (66) Francesco NEGRO 1947 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (67) Gian Francesco NEGRO 1978 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (68) Leonardo Graziano NEVOLA 1953 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (69) Vincenzo NEVOLA 1953 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (70) Filomena PADOVANO 1986 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (71) Elvira PAGLIUSO 1966 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (72) Gianluca PAGLIUSO 1973 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (73) Giuseppina PAGLIUSO 1933 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (74) Leopoldo PAGLIUSO 1942 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (75) Angelina PANARESE 1939 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (76) Angelina Luigia PANARESE 1951 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (77) Carmine PANARESE 1965 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (78) Fausto PANARESE 1953 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (79) Maria Giuseppa PANARESE 1959 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (80) Rosa PANARESE 1937 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (81) Antonio PASTORE 1967 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (82) Anna PENNUCCI 1946 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (83) Stefano PETROCCIA 1985 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (84) Loriana PIEMONTESE 1970 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (85) Lorenzina PIERRO 1957 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (86) Marianna PILATO 1931 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (87) Giuseppe RANALDO 1990 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (88) Anna RICCI 1937 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (89) Susanna RIEBEN 1947 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (90) Fausto ROSSETTI 1952 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (91) Sarah Priscilla ROSSETTI 1942 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (92) Sebastiano ROSSETTI 1945 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (93) Anna SCURA 1991 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (94) Francesca SCURA 1989 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (95) Giorgio SCURA 1955 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (96) Giovanni SIGNORIELLO 1942 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (97) Luigi Antonio SILVESTRI 1930 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (98) Rosa STOLA 1962 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (99) Michele TUCCI 1974 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (100) Franca TUFO 1953 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (101) Raffaella VARRICCHIO 1975 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (102) Antonio ZULLO 1960 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (103) Antonio ZULLO 1988 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (104) Carmela ZULLO 1960 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (105) Gerardo ZULLO 1964 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (106) Giovanni ZULLO 1960 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (107) Raimondo ZULLO 1960 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (108) Renato ZULLO 1988 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (109) Rosanna ZULLO 1990 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (110) Valerio ZULLO 1990 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian Francesco ANGELONI Francesco ALTIERI Benevento 2. 482/13 Chiuchiolo and Others v. Italy 21/12/2012 (111) Maria CHIUCHIOLO 1957 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (112) Michele BOZZELLA 1972 Paduli Italian (113) Pellegrino BOZZELLA 1972 Paduli Italian (114) Gerardo D’ANGELIS 1962 Paduli Italian (115) Maria Carmela DE FILIPPO 1960 Paduli Italian (116) Giuseppina DE ROSA 1960 Paduli Italian (117) Marco LAURENTI 1947 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (118) Fernando LIMONGELLI 1952 Paduli Italian (119) Lucia MAGISTRO 1975 Paduli Italian (120) Chiarina MARMORALE 1964 Paduli Italian (121) Luigi MASTROVITO 1990 Paduli Italian (122) Raffaele MAZZEO 1979 Paduli Italian (123) Rosa MAZZEO 1930 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (124) Carmine MAZZONE 1925 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (125) Giuseppe MESSERE 1973 Paduli Italian (126) Pompea MESSERE 1972 Paduli Italian (127) Claudio MINICOZZI 1986 Paduli Italian (128) Fausto MINICOZZI 1972 Paduli Italian (129) Felice MINICOZZI 1950 Paduli Italian (130) Filiberto MINICOZZI 1965 Paduli Italian (131) Gianni MINICOZZI 1964 Paduli Italian (132) Sandrino MINICOZZI 1966 Paduli Italian (133) Verena MUHLETHALER 1962 Paduli Italian (134) Maria PANARESE 1925 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (135) Nicoletta PANARESE 1932 Sant’Arcangelo Trimonte Italian (136) Mario RANALDO 1968 Paduli Italian (137) Nicolino SCUDIERO 1964 Paduli Italian (138) Simona ZENCA 1981 Paduli Italian Francesco ANGELONI Francesco ALTIERI Domenico VESSICCHELLI Benevento