Brutal murder of a one-year-old child by his father! Domestic violence. Condemnation for failure of the authorities to protect the victims!
JUDGMENT
Landi v. Italy 07.04.2022 (app. no. 10929/19)
SUMMARY
In the present case Ms Landi alleged that the Italian State had failed to take the requisite action to
protect her and her two children from the domestic violence inflicted by her partner, which had led
to the murder of her one-year-old son and her own attempted murder in 2018.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, Ms Landi submitted that the Italian authorities
had failed to take all the necessary action to protect her and her child’s lives.
Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 2, she
considered that the lack of legal protection and of an adequate response from the authorities to her
allegations of domestic violence amounted to discriminatory treatment on grounds of sex.
The Court noted that the national authorities had failed in their duty to conduct an immediate and
proactive assessment of the risk of a repetition of the violent acts committed against Ms Landi and
her children, and to adopt operational and preventive measures to mitigate the risk and to protect
those concerned. In particular, the authorities had remained passive in the face of the serious risk of
ill-treatment of Ms Landi, and their inaction had enabled the applicant’s partner to continue to
threaten, harass and attack her unhindered and with impunity. The authorities ought to have
assessed the risk of renewed violence and adopted appropriate and adequate measures. Such
measures could have been adopted by the authorities, pursuant to Italian legislation, whether or not
there had been a complaint or any change in the victim’s perception of the risk. The authorities had
reacted neither immediately, as required in cases of domestic violence, nor at any other time. They
had therefore failed to show the requisite diligence and to honour their obligation to protect Ms
Landi’s and her son’s lives.
Nevertheless, the Court did not consider that the impugned shortcomings could be considered, per
se, as pointing to any discriminatory attitude on the authorities’ part. The complaint concerning
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 2 was therefore manifestly
ill-founded.
The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction of 32,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
PROVISIONS
Article 2
Article 14
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Annalisa Landi, is an Italian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Scarperia
(Italy).
Ms Landi explained that she had entered into a relationship with her partner (N.P.) in 2010 without
knowing that he had suffered from bipolar disorder since the age of 20. In particular, he had
displayed progressive mood changes accompanied by severed impulsiveness, irritability and
extremely violent behaviour. He had also suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder. In the past
N.P. had been an alcoholic and had been banned from approaching his previous partner.
Ms Landi and N.P. had had two children, V. (a girl born in 2011) and M. (a boy born in 2017).
Between November 2015 and September 2018 Ms Landi sustained four attacks by her partner, after
each of which the Scarperia police intervened. N.P. was hospitalised on a number of occasions after
the said attacks, and was prescribed drug therapy on discharge from hospital in February 2018. He
had gone to live with his parents, and then had gone back to Ms Landi’s home in April 2018.
According to the applicant, a doctor had recommended a joint consultation for the couple in order
to facilitate N.P.’s treatment.
In the meantime, Ms Landi had lodged, and then withdrawn, several complaints. However,
proceedings had been commenced against N.P. on charges of domestic violence, but no orders had
been issued for the protection of Ms Landi and her children during the investigation, in the course of
which the expert had pointed out that N.P. posed a danger to society on account of his mental
health issues and that he should be placed under a regular therapeutic programme.
The fourth attack occurred in September 2018, when N.P. had been disturbed by noise caused by his
son and by a telephone call to Ms Landi. He had become angry, and had seized his daughter V. by
the hair and thrown her against the wall. He had then fetched a knife from the kitchen and assaulted
Ms Landi, stabbing her in the face and body. She had fallen to the floor with her son M., whom she
had set down beside her. N.P. had then stabbed his son M. several times, causing his death.
In October 2019 N.P. had been sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay
100,000 euros to Ms Landi and her daughter V., who had joined the criminal proceedings as civil
parties.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 2 (right to life)
The Court noted that the national authorities had failed in their duty to conduct an immediate and
proactive assessment of the risk of the recurrence of the violent acts committed against Ms Landi
and her children, and to adopt operational and preventive measures to mitigate the risk and to
protect those concerned, as well as to censure N.P.’s conduct. The public prosecutors, in particular, had remained passive in the face of the serious risk of ill-treatment of Ms Landi, and their inaction had enabled the applicant’s partner to continue to threaten, harass and attack her unhindered and
with impunity. The national authorities had known, or should have known, of the real and imminent
risk to Ms Landi’s and her children’s lives. They should therefore have assessed the risk of further
violence and taken appropriate and adequate action to protect the applicant and her children.
However, they had failed in that obligation, as they had reacted neither “immediately”, as required
in cases of domestic violence, nor at any other time.
The Court held that, relying on the information known to the authorities at the material time to the
effect that there was a real and imminent risk of further violence against Ms Landi and her children,
in the light of the allegations of escalating domestic violence submitted by the applicant and in view
of N.P.’s mental health issues, the authorities had failed to show the requisite diligence. They had
not conducted a lethality risk assessment specifically designed for domestic violence, and in
particular for the situation faced by the applicant and her children, which would have justified
practical preventive measures to protect them from such a risk. In blatant disregard of the wide
range of protective measures directly available to them, the authorities, which could have
implemented protective measures by alerting the social and psychological services and placing Ms
Landi and her children in a women’s refuge, had shown little diligence in preventing the violence
against the applicant and her children, which had led to the attempted murder of the applicant and
the actual murder of her son M. The authorities could have adopted the above-mentioned measures
under Italian legislation whether or not there had been a complaint or any change in the victim’s
perception of the risk.
The Court found that the authorities could not be deemed to have shown the requisite diligence.
They had therefore failed in their positive obligation under Article 2 to protect the applicant’s and
her son’s lives.
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 2
The Court noted that police officers had on several occasions reported to the public prosecutors on
Ms Landi’s situation, even after she had withdrawn her final complaint, and they had requested the
adoption of protective measures. The Court also considered that the public prosecutors had clearly
failed in their duty to adopt preventive measures which could possibly have averted the tragic
outcome or at least mitigated the damage. Nevertheless, having regard, in particular, to the
proactive attitude adopted by the carabinieri, the inertia of the investigating authorities in the
instant case could not be considered as a systemic defect.
The Court observed that there was nothing in the present case to suggest that the public
prosecutors in charge of the applicant’s case had acted in a discriminatory manner or with
discriminatory intent vis-à-vis the applicant herself. It pointed out that a breach of Article 14 arose
only where there were general shortcomings deriving from a clear and systemic failure of the
national authorities to appreciate and address the seriousness and extent of the problem of
domestic violence and its discriminatory effect on women.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the shortcomings complained of in this case – even though
they had originated in serious inertia on the part of the authorities and had been unlawful and
incompatible with Article 2 of the Convention – could not be deemed per se to point to any
discriminatory attitude on the authorities’ part. That complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded
and had to be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Italy was to pay Ms Landi 32,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
Separate opinion
Judge Sabato expressed a separate opinion, annexed to the judgment
