Judgment Cioffi v. Italy - Ill-treatment of a trainee lawyer at a police station following an anti-globalisation demonstration

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 137 (2025)   05.06.2025   Italy violated the Convention for ill-treatment of a trainee lawyer at a police   station following an anti-globalisation demonstration   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Cioffi v. Italy (application no. 17710/15) the European   Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention   on Human Rights, concerning both the police ill-treatment of Mr Cioffi, and the subsequent   investigation.   The case concerned the taking of Mr Cioffi, then a trainee lawyer to a Naples police station, where he   had suffered alleged ill-treatment at the hands of police officers, including being punched while on his   knees, and verbal and physical abuse when he had attempted to request information. This took place   against the background of the Global Forum on Reinventing Government in Naples in 2001.   The Court found in particular that the facts of his ill-treatment by the police had been clearly   established by the Italian courts, which had described it, among other terms, as “particularly odious”.   It also held the subsequent investigation – in which 31 officials had been charged with multiple   offences in connection with these events but most of the prosecutions had been discontinued owing   to the expiry of the limitation period – to have been inadequate.   Principal facts   The applicant, Andrea Cioffi, is an Italian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Naples (Italy).   Following anti-globalisation demonstrations in Naples in March 2001 around the Global Forum on   Reinventing Government, a large number of people were injured. Mr Cioffi, along with a number of   people demonstrators, was removed from the accident and emergency department of a hospital and   taken to the Virgilio Raniero police station on the afternoon of 17 March 2001.   An investigation was carried out into accusations of kidnapping, abuse of authority by State officials,   criminal coercion, and bodily harm of Mr Cioffi, among other offences, as a result of which 31 police   officers were charged. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.   In its judgment, the Naples District Court found that individuals taken into custody had been victims   of “egregious conduct” (gravissime condotte), including: being made to walk through a hallway   surrounded by law-enforcement officers, who took turns slapping, kicking, tripping, spitting on and   verbally abusing them; being forced to kneel with their hands behind their heads, being forced to   remain silent at all times and not being allowed to communicate with their lawyers or to inform their   family members of their situation; having their mobile telephones seized and, in certain cases,   damaged; being beaten and subjected to various forms of physical abuse; being subjected to threats   and verbal abuse; and not being allowed to eat, drink or use the toilet.   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.   The District Court found that Mr Cioffi had been beaten several times, including when on his knees   with his hands behind his head. When he had identified himself as a trainee lawyer and asked why he   was being held without formal arrest, he had been physically abused. The court found this to be   “particularly unacceptable”. He had been called l’avvocatino (“the little lawyer”) by the officers, who   said they knew where he lived.   With respect to the offences, including bodily harm and criminal coercion, the District Court decided   that the proceedings had to be discontinued because the applicable statutory limitation periods had   expired. Among other verdicts, 10 officers were convicted of kidnapping and given prison sentences   of up to two years and eight months, together with suspension from public office. Fourteen officers   appealed. In January 2013 the kidnapping convictions were quashed by the Naples Court of Appeal   owing to expiry of the limitation period, as were the suspensions from public office. In October 2015   the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment. At the conclusion of the proceedings all offences were   ultimately time-barred except in the case of three officers who had filed an express waiver of the   statutory limitation periods.   The majority of the offences were ultimately time-barred.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) 5 (right to liberty and security)   and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Cioffi alleged, in particular, that he had been ill-treated while   in police custody, and that the time-barring of those alleged offences meant they had gone   unpunished.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 June 2015.   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   Article 3   The European Court noted the Italian courts’ detailed factual findings concerning the abuse to which   Mr Cioffi had been subjected; they had declared his treatment to have been “particularly odious” and   the abuse as “very violent”. This treatment had not been caused by Mr Cioffi’s conduct. It noted, in   particular, the first-instance court’s finding that when Mr Cioffi had attempted to obtain information   from the police, he had been met with verbal and physical abuse, which had been characterised as   “particularly unacceptable”.   Overall, the Court concluded that Mr Cioffi had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment   by the police.   2 Regarding the investigation into these allegations, 31 officials and police officers were tried in   connection with the events in this case, under multiple charges. However, most of the proceedings   were discontinued as time-barred.   The Court reiterated that in its Cestaro v. Italy (no. 6884/11) judgment it had invited Italy to introduce   legal mechanisms capable of, amongst other things, preventing those responsible for acts of torture   and other types of ill-treatment from benefiting from measures incompatible with the case-law of the   Court, including statute-barring, which can, in practice, prevent the punishment of those responsible   for acts contrary to Article 3.   This time-barring of offences in this case had prevented the establishment of criminal responsibility –   and, if appropriate, punishment – for abuse that the Italian courts had already found to be factually   established.   The Court concluded that there had not been an effective investigation by the Italian authorities into   Mr Cioffi’s allegations, in order either to punish those responsible, or to deter future ill-treatment.   The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention with regard both to Mr   Cioffi's ill-treatment by the police, and to the subsequent investigation.   Other articles   The Court considered that it had dealt with the main legal issues raised under Article 3 and that there   was no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 5 and 13.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Italy was to pay the applicant 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage.   Separate opinion   Judges Serghides and Adamska-Gallant expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed   to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   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.   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   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.   3