Talpis v Italy

Case Name: Talpis v Italy

Court: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Date: 2^nd March 2017

Citation: Talpis v Italy App no 41237/14 (ECHR, 2 March 2017)

Introduction:

Applicant – Ms. Mihaela Talpis

Respondent – The Italian State

Nature of the Case: Human Rights case concerning state failure to protect a victim of domestic violence

Procedural History:

The case began with the Italian authorities’ failure to take effective action in response to Ms. Talpis’s reports of domestic violence. Following a tragic incident in which her son was killed and she was seriously injured by her husband, criminal proceedings were initiated in Italy. Dissatisfied with the state’s inadequate protection and response, Ms. Talpis brought the matter before the European Court of Human Rights.

Facts of the case:

Elisaveta Talpis, the applicant, is a Romanian and Moldovan national who was a victim of prolonged domestic violence perpetrated by her husband, A.T. Despite submitting multiple reports to the Italian authorities, no effective protective measures were taken.^[1]

In June 2012, both Ms. Talpis and her daughter were physically assaulted by A.T. She contacted the police, requesting intervention, but no meaningful action followed. A few months later, on 19 August 2012, she was again assaulted and threatened by A.T. with a knife. Although she sought police assistance, the officers merely verified the couple’s identities and issued A.T. a fine for the unauthorised possession of a weapon, without taking any further steps to ensure her safety.^[2]

On 5 September 2012, Ms. Talpis formally lodged a complaint with the authorities, requesting urgent intervention. However, the investigation was delayed for seven months, during which she remained vulnerable to further violence. Tragically, on 25 November 2013, while intoxicated and armed with a kitchen knife, A.T. fatally stabbed their son, who had attempted to defend her, and seriously injured Ms. Talpis.^[3]

Legal Issues:

• Whether the Italian authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligations under Article 2 (Right to Life) by not taking adequate and timely measures to protect Ms. Talpis and her son from foreseeable harm.
• Whether the state’s inaction in response to repeated domestic violence reports amounted to a violation of Article 3 (Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), exposing Ms. Talpis to ongoing fear and vulnerability.
• Whether the authorities’ failure to act constituted gender-based discrimination, breaching Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3.

Arguments:

Applicants’ arguments:

The central issue before the Court was whether the Italian authorities failed in their positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to protect Ms. Talpis and her family from domestic violence, despite her repeated reports.

Ms. Talpis alleged a violation of Article 2 (Right to Life), arguing that the state failed to take adequate preventive measures to protect her son from foreseeable harm, ultimately resulting in his death. ^[4]She also invoked Article 3 (Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), asserting that the authorities’ repeated inaction in response to her complaints subjected her to ongoing fear and vulnerability, amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment.^[5]

Additionally, she claimed a violation of Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination), in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3, on the basis that the state’s failure to act reflected systemic gender-based discrimination and highlighted the inadequacy of Italy’s legal framework for addressing domestic violence.^[6]

Respondents’ argument:

The Italian Government refuted the allegations, maintaining that it had not breached any rights protected under the Convention. It asserted that the actions taken, such as identifying the individuals involved, issuing a fine to the husband for weapon possession, and launching a criminal investigation, were appropriate and lawful responses given the circumstances. The Government claimed that no real and immediate risk to Ms. Talpis’s life would have necessitated urgent or exceptional intervention, and therefore, the requirements of Article 2 were not triggered. Regarding Article 3, Italy contended that the treatment Ms. Talpis experienced did not reach the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment caused by state inaction. Finally, it firmly denied any violation of Article 14, arguing that Ms. Talpis was not discriminated against on the basis of gender and that domestic violence cases were treated seriously within the Italian justice system. ^[7]

Court’s Decision and Analysis:

The ECtHR found that Italy had violated Article 2 of the ECHR, and it ruled by a 6-1 majority that Italy’s inaction constituted a violation of Article 2. In the Talpis case, the judges applied the Osman Test from the Osman v. UK [1998], which established that the authorities knew or should have known about the immediate risk to the victim’s life but failed to take reasonable measures to prevent it, despite having the power to do so.^[8] The court highlights that Italy’s legal framework and law enforcement did not act as an adequate deterrent to prevent A.T.’s repeated acts of domestic violence, and the state also failed to take effective measures to stop A.T. from abusing Talpis and eventually killing their son. It reiterated its approach in the Opuz v Turkey [2009], where states have a responsibility to actively prevent gender-based violence, especially in cases of domestic abuse. The Court stressed that authorities should intervene early, such as by responding properly to threats, enforcing restraining orders, and ensuring victims have protection and support.^[9] However, some scholars have highlighted that expanding positive obligations could lead to excessive state intervention. They argue that the state must strike a balance between interfering too much and interfering only when necessary, ensuring that intervention is proportionate and justified.^[10] Therefore, the state was found responsible for violating Talpis and her son’s right to life.

The Court held unanimously that there was a violation of Article 3(prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) of the ECHR. The judges decided on account of the authorities’ failure to comply with their obligation to protect the applicant from the acts of domestic violence committed by A.T. The severe physical and psychological abuse inflicted on Talpis was deemed inhuman and degrading treatment, which falls within the explicit prohibitions of Article 3.

The Court, by a 5 to 2 majority, held that the failure of the Italian authorities to protect Talpis constituted a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR. It reaffirmed that domestic violence is a form of gender-based discrimination and that the state’s inaction amounted to discriminatory treatment. The authorities’ failure to intervene allowed the abuse to escalate, ultimately resulting in the murder of her son and serious injuries to Talpis.^[11]

Judge Eckie issued a partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion on Article 14. While agreeing with the majority that Italy had failed to protect Talpis, she argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish gender-based discrimination. Similarly, Judge Spano dissented with the Court’s findings on both Articles 2 and 14. He acknowledged the state’s duty to protect life but cautioned that it should not be expected to prevent every possible danger. He further emphasized that state failures alone do not constitute discrimination unless there is clear evidence of systemic or intentional bias.

In Opuz, the Court recognised domestic violence as a serious human rights issue, affirming states’ positive obligation to protect individuals from gender-based violence. Talpis expanded the court’s interpretation by emphasizing that failing to intervene in ongoing abuse can itself constitute a human rights violation, reinforcing the duty to take proactive and effective measures. Scholars support this reasoning, emphasising that the ECtHR applies dynamic interpretation, which adapts the Convention to contemporary societal values. This ensures that human rights remain meaningful and effective in addressing modern challenges, such as the evolving recognition of domestic violence as a systemic human rights violation.^[12] However, some critics argue that this approach of broadening interpretations can create unpredictability that goes beyond what states originally intended and makes it difficult for states to anticipate their legal obligations.^[13]

Significance:

The Talpis ruling marks a significant advancement in the ECtHR’s approach to domestic violence. While previous rulings varied, the Court has increasingly demanded that states take proactive measures to prevent violence and protect victims. This case, building upon earlier judgments like Rumor v Italy [2014],^[14] explicitly condemned Italy’s inaction and highlighted the severity of domestic violence and discrimination against women^[15]. Following Talpis, the ECtHR has recognized Italy’s significant efforts to implement the Istanbul Convention, demonstrating a genuine commitment to combating violence against women. This was acknowledged in Landi v. Italy (2022), where the Court recognised legal and policy reforms aimed at improving protections for female victims of domestic violence. As a result, the applicant, Landi, failed to provide sufficient evidence of systemic failures in the justice system that continued to impede effective protection.^[16] Unlike in the Talpis case, where Italy had failed to take adequate action, the Landi case reflected meaningful reforms and the absence of widespread failures in protecting victims.

Additionally, the Talpis case has also emphasised that states must act proactively to prevent gender-based violence and protect victims, following the standards set in the Opuz case and this was reaffirmed in the A.E. v. Bulgaria [2023] case ruling that Bulgarian authorities did not take sufficient steps to prevent the applicant’s suffering, despite being aware of the risk. This case also applied and reinforced the positive obligations which were established by the Talpis case. Furthermore, it highlighted that states cannot remain passive in cases of domestic violence and must take concrete steps to protect victims and ensure effective investigations.^[17]

Conclusion:

In Conclusion, the Talpis case established violations of Articles 2, 3, and 14 of the ECHR due to Italy’s failure to act, leading to her son’s murder. By reinforcing states’ positive obligations, the Court stressed proactive protection against foreseeable harm, especially in gender-based violence cases. Building on Opuz, the ruling affirmed that domestic violence constitutes a serious human rights issue. The ruling influenced later cases like Landi, which recognised Italy’s legal reforms, and A.E., which reaffirmed states’ duty to prevent domestic violence.

Reference(S):

^[1] Talpis v Italy App no 41237/14 (ECHR, 2 March 2017) para 9.

^[2] ibid, paras 14 & 15.

^[3] ibid, para 42.

^[4] ibid, para 76.

^[5] ibid, paras 126 – 131.

^[6] ibid, para 133.

^[7] ibid, paras 87 – 94.

^[8] Osman v. UK App no 87/1997/871/1083 (ECtHR, 28^th October 1998), Paras 115 – 116.

^[9] Opuz v. Turkey App no 33401/02 (ECtHR, 9 June 2009).

^[10] Ed Bates, ‘Alastair Mowbray, The Development of Positive Obligations Under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights’ (2005) 5(1) Human Rights Law Review < https://doi-org.ezproxy.mdx.ac.uk/10.1093/hrlrev/ngi010> accessed on 27^th February 2025. 

^[11] Talpis (n 1), paras 140 – 149.

^[12] Alastair Mowbray, The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (1edn, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 2004) page 41.

^[13] George Letsas, ‘Intentionalism, Textualism, and Evolutive Interpretation’, (2007) A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights <https://doiorg.ezproxy.mdx.ac.uk/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199203437.003.0004> accessed on 27^th February 2025.

^[14] Rumor v. Italy App no 72964/10 (ECtHR, 27 May 2014).

^[15] Alessia Nicastro, The passivity of Italy in counteracting domestic violence: The Talpis v Italy case’ (2021) 13 Amsterdam law forum < https://heinonline-org.ezproxy.mdx.ac.uk/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/amslawf13&i=152> accessed on 28^th February.

^[16] Landi v Italy App no 10929/19 (ECtHR, 7^th April 2022).

^[17] A.E. v Bulgaria App no 53891/20 (ECtHR, 23^rd August 2023), paras 87-88.