Judgment Laterza and D'Errico v. Italy - Ineffective investigation into allegedly work-related cause of death and exposure to toxic substances

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 082 (2025)   27.03.2025   Ineffective investigation into allegedly work-related cause of death (from   exposure to toxic substances)   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Laterza and D’Errico v. Italy (application no. 30336/22)   the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 2 (right to life/investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings brought by the applicants in   respect of their relative’s death from a pulmonary tumour, which, they alleged, had been caused by   his exposure to toxic substances in the workplace.   The Court found in particular that, having regard to the relevant domestic case-law and the fact that   an occupational source of G.L.’s condition had not been excluded at the outset, the trial court could   have ordered further investigations to ascertain the possible existence of a causal link between the   exposure to harmful substances and the deceased’s illness, with a view to identifying those   responsible for any breaches of safety measures. It followed 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. The investigation had therefore not been effective.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link)   Principal facts   The applicants are two Italian nationals who were born in 1976 and 1956. They were the son and wife   of G.L., who was employed between 1980 and 2004 by Ilva (now known as Fintecna), a company   specialising in steel production and processing.   In July 2010 G.L. died of a pulmonary tumour. Arguing that G.L.’s death had been caused by his   prolonged exposure in the workplace to toxic substances used in steel production, the applicants   lodged a criminal complaint against a person or persons unknown for involuntary manslaughter.   They attached to their complaint an expert medical report stating that G.L. had been exposed on a   continuous basis to asbestos and other toxic substances (benzene, hydrocarbons and dioxins), and   that any exposure to such substances was a risk factor for tumours. The report concluded that a causal   link with the Ilva plant’s activities could be established.   In 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 G.L.’s condition.   In 2019 the SPESAL submitted its report. It noted, among other points, that Fintecna had not provided   the requested information, in particular with regard to G.L.’s duties at the plant, and that in   consequence it was not possible to document his professional tasks with any certainty. It also stated   that the company had not provided information about whether personal protective equipment had   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any   party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers   whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the   referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   been issued to workers in the period prior to 1995, adding that in a note of 23 September 2016, Ilva   had indicated that its internal investigation into the issuing of personal protective equipment had been   inconclusive.   In 2019 the public prosecutor requested that the case be discontinued, holding that the evidence   gathered did not prove that the illness that had caused G.L.’s death was occupational in nature. The   applicants appealed against that decision, requesting the inclusion in the case file of a complete record   of G.L.’s duties, as well as other documents relating to pending criminal proceedings against several   managers at the Ilva plant, including the individuals who had held such positions while G.L. was   employed there.   In 2022 the investigating judge – while finding that an occupational cause for G.L.’s multifactorial   condition could not be ruled out – dismissed the applicants’ appeal and discontinued the proceedings.   In particular, she considered that in order to establish a causal link with G.L’s condition it was   necessary to determine the period in which he had first been exposed to harmful substances, but that   this was impossible, since he had worked under the authority of multiple individuals.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on the procedural aspect of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, the applicants   complained that the national authorities had discontinued the proceedings without taking into   account the expert report demonstrating the correlation between G.L.’s condition and his exposure   to harmful substances in the workplace. They also submitted that in discontinuing the investigation,   the authorities had chosen not to examine evidence which, in their view, would have made it possible   to identify the individuals with responsibility for implementing safety measures in the plant.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 June 2022.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus),   Raffaele Sabato (Italy),   Alain Chablais (Liechtenstein),   Artūrs Kučs (Latvia),   Anna Adamska-Gallant (Poland),   and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued because it had proved   impossible to determine the starting-point (“initial event”) in the causal process, or to change that   factual situation by using the evidence requested in the applicants’ appeal against the prosecuting   authorities’ decision. The Court then noted as follows.   Contrary to the recommended domestic judicial practice, the national authorities’ conclusion had not   been based on any expert report related to scientific studies in the relevant field. Nor had it been   based on any scientific explanation, or circumstance specific to the case in hand, that would have   made it impossible to assess the relevant period of exposure to harmful substances, with a view to   ascertaining a causal link with G.L.’s condition.   Furthermore, although the investigating judge had found that the information in the case file did not   allow the initial event in the causal process to be determined, she had rejected the request that further   2 evidence be gathered in order to clarify that issue. Equally, she had not ordered any further   investigations, on the grounds that, in any event, gathering additional evidence would not lead to   identification of the exact period in which the “so-called trigger dose” for the illness had been   absorbed.   Moreover, the report submitted by the SPESAL referred to several gaps in G.L.’s work record, resulting   in particular from the impossibility of obtaining access to 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 – 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 pursued 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 that harmful substance with a causal link to his condition, and to identify   the persons responsible for safety measures during that period.   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, it   was necessary to determine the initial event in the causal process; however, precisely because   multiple persons had been involved, it proved impossible to identify that event.   It was thus clear from the contested decision that, owing to 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.   The Court considers, however, that in such a context, having regard to the relevant domestic case-law   and the fact that an occupational origin of G.L.’s condition had not been excluded at the outset, the   trial court could have ordered further investigations to ascertain the possible existence of a causal link   between the exposure to 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 allowed the Court to find 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. The Court concluded that the investigation had not   been effective and that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural   aspect.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the   Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter)   @ECHR_CEDH and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   3 Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4