Judgment Magherini and Others v. Italy - death following law-enforcement officers using prone position immobilisation technique

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 014 (2025)   15.01.2026   Breach of the Convention concerning death of an Italian man after   law-enforcement officers used prone position to immobilise him   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case Magherini and Others v. Italy (application no. 32707/19)   the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   two violations of Article 2 (right to life/investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The applicants in the case alleged that law-enforcement officers (carabinieri) had used excessive force   in 2014 when dispatched to deal with their relative, R.M., who had been visibly agitated and distraught   on a street in Florence. He died after the carabinieri had immobilised and handcuffed him, and held   him in the prone position for approximately 20 minutes.   The Court found that the carabinieri holding R.M. on the ground in the prone position for   approximately 20 minutes after his initial immobilisation, and even after he had apparently become   unresponsive, had not been absolutely necessary to restrain him. It also found shortcomings in the   ensuing investigation (as concerned its independence), the training of law-enforcement officers in   immobilisation techniques and the guidelines in force in Italy at the time for placing individuals in the   prone position with minimum risk to health and life.   The Court did not, however, voice an opinion on any criminal responsibility of the individuals involved   in the incident. Nor did it not call into question the decisions of the Italian courts, which had ultimately   acquitted the four carabinieri involved in the incident.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link).   Principal facts   On 3 March 2014 four carabinieri officers were dispatched to deal with a visibly agitated and   distraught man, R.M., in the streets of Florence. He had apparently grabbed a taxi driver by the neck,   manhandled a passer-by, attempted to stop and enter moving vehicles, and damaged property. After   initial unsuccessful attempts to calm R.M. down, the carabinieri brought him to the ground,   immobilised him in a prone position and handcuffed him.   He remained in this position for approximately 20 minutes until an ambulance arrived with a doctor,   who, realising that he was in cardiac arrest, turned him over and started cardiopulmonary   resuscitation (CPR). R.M. was then taken to hospital but declared dead.   A subsequent medical report concluded that the cause of death had been due to a combination of   factors: R.M.’s acute cocaine intoxication, the stress from his immobilisation, the attempts to free   himself and the prone position in which he had been held. The ensuing proceedings before the courts   based their findings, among other things, on this report.   In 2016-2017 the lower courts found three carabinieri guilty of causing death by negligence. However,   the Court of Cassation ultimately – in 2018 – reversed this decision, ruling that no offence had been   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.   committed because, among other things, the carabinieri could not have been expected to recognise   the seriousness of the situation or its consequences.   The ten applicants in the case are R.M.’s parents, wife, son, brother, uncle, nephew and cousins. They   are all Italian nationals and mostly live in Florence, with others residing in Busto Arsizio, Scandicci or   Ferrara (Italy).   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 2 (right to life/investigation), the applicants alleged that their relative had died as a   result of excessive use of police force and that the ensuing criminal investigation had been ineffective.   Also relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants alleged that   R.M.’s immobilisation had caused him extreme pain and suffering and that one of the officers had   deliberately kicked him once he had been forced to the ground.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 May 2019.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Raffaele Sabato (Italy),   Frédéric Krenc (Belgium),   Alain Chablais (Liechtenstein),   Artūrs Kučs (Latvia),   Anna Adamska-Gallant (Poland),   and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 (right to life/investigation)   Firstly, the Court found that three of the applicants, R.M.’s cousins, could not claim to be a victim of   an alleged violation of the Convention and rejected their complaints as inadmissible.   It went on to note, like the national courts, that the use of force against R.M., namely his   immobilisation and being held in the prone position, had contributed to his death. That use of force   had had a legitimate aim, which was to restrain R.M. because his agitated behaviour had put his own   and others’ safety at risk. It accepted that R.M.’s initial immobilisation, preceded by attempts at de-   escalation, had been “absolutely necessary” to achieve that aim.   However, the Court could not see how holding R.M. on the ground in the prone position for the next   20 minutes after his being handcuffed, and even after he had apparently become unresponsive, had   been absolutely necessary.   Moreover, there had been no guidelines in force in Italy at the time providing clear and adequate   instructions on placing individuals in the prone position with minimum risk to health and life. Even   though the general command of the carabinieri had issued a circular in January 2014 specifically raising   awareness about the risks involved when using the prone position to restrain a person who had for   example taken drugs, it had not been in force at the time of R.M.’s death. The Court found it   concerning that that circular had since been replaced by circulars issued in 2016 and 2019 with no   mention of such risks.   Closely linked to that shortcoming was the issue of the proper training of law-enforcement officers.   The Government had not submitted any evidence that the officers involved in the incident had had   2 training in the use of immobilisation techniques, such as the prone position, that could pose a threat   to life.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 2 as concerned the use of force   used against R.M. and the State’s duty to protect his right to life. However, that finding did not call   into question the decisions of the Italian courts, which had ultimately acquitted the four carabinieri   involved in the incident. Nor was it the Court’s intention to voice an opinion on any criminal   responsibility of the individuals concerned.   The Court also held that there had been a further violation of Article 2 as concerned the investigation,   because of doubts over its independence. In particular, two of the police officers directly involved in   the incident had almost immediately gone to the emergency room where R.M. had been taken and   questioned an eyewitness, a Red Cross volunteer who had been one of the first responders. The Court   could not speculate whether the Red Cross volunteer would have made a different statement had she   not been questioned by the police officers. However, it could not ignore the risk that she might have   felt pressured into making a statement in a certain way, given that the very officers who were   questioning her had been involved in the incident she had witnessed.   Other articles   The Court considered that the main legal questions in the case had been dealt with under Article 2   and therefore held that there was no need to examine the complaints under Article 3.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Italy was to pay seven of the applicants, in total, 140,000 euros (EUR) in respect   of non-pecuniary damage and, jointly, EUR 40,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   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.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   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.   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)   Claire Windsor (tel: + 33 3 88 41 24 01)   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