CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s80004C07 { width:103.94%; border-collapse:collapse } .sCBE34B68 { width:9.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCDF5403D { width:25.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7277B24C { width:18.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4F1AA88F { width:18.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD9F36038 { width:27.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4A8751CA { width:9.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s842615BF { width:25.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7E2F6F42 { width:18.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7792C3D1 { width:18.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC9E312A9 { width:27.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 3 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 56288/18 Antonio ZAPPI and Others against Italy lodged on 16 November 2018 communicated on 14 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, in their capacity as managers of a naval construction company, were found guilty of manslaughter committed in violation of the laws on the prevention of accidents at work ( in violazione delle norme per la prevenzione degli infortuni sul lavoro ) under Article 589 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”), for having exposed the company employees to asbestos without adopting the necessary precautions between 1966 and 1984, which led to employees developing lethal illnesses. The conviction became final with Court of Cassation’s judgment no.   22022 of 22 February 2018, filed with the registry on 18 May 2018. The applicants complain under Article 7 of the Convention of the unforeseeability of the interpretation adopted by the domestic courts in their case, as the courts extended the notion of accidents at work ( infortuni sul lavoro ) to the development of occupational illnesses ( malattie professionali ), based on a line of case-law established after the commission of the acts for which they were convicted.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicants’ conviction of manslaughter committed in violation of the laws on the prevention of accidents at work ( in violazione delle norme per la prevenzione degli infortuni sul lavoro ) under Article 589 § 2 of the Criminal Code in compliance with Article 7 of the Convention? In particular, in light of the wording of the relevant provision and of domestic practice, was it foreseeable for the applicants that, at the material time, the acts reproached to them could engage a criminal liability under Article 589 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see   Dragotoniu and Militaru-Pidhorni v. Romania , nos. 77193/01 and 77196/01, §§ 39-48, 24 May 2007; compare Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2015 ; Parmak and Bakır v. Turkey , nos. 22429/07 and 25195/07, §   62, 3   December   2019; and Tristan v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 13451/15, §   49, 4   July 2023)?   In answering the question, the parties are invited to provide an overview of relevant domestic case-law and doctrinal interpretation.       APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Antonio ZAPPI 1935 Italian Rome 2. Cesare CASINI 1927 Italian Trieste 3. Roberto SCHIVI 1938 Italian Bologna 4. Giorgio TUPINI 1922 Italian Fiuggi