Schmidheiny faces fresh Italian trial over asbestos deaths

The Supreme Court has sent part of the Eternit case back to appeal, reopening proceedings over deaths attributed to asbestos pollution in Casale Monferrato. Swiss businessman Stephan Schmidheiny faces accusations of multiple counts of aggravated manslaughter. The Italian court’s decision concerns about 60 victims whose cases will receive a fresh assessment.

The ruling followed more than six hours of deliberation by the Fourth Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation. Its president read the judgment in a courtroom packed with relatives of the victims, who listened in silence. The case will return to another section of the Turin Court of Appeal.

The decision also closes the door on claims involving 25 further victims: the court ruled that the statute of limitations applies to those cases. The Attorney General’s Office had asked the Supreme Court to confirm a sentence of nine years and six months for Schmidheiny. The judges rejected that request, leaving a new appeal hearing to determine the cases sent back.

The fresh hearing covers around 60 people who died after asbestos pollution and mesothelioma. A further 25 victims’ cases have been ruled time-barred, splitting the outcome for families affected by the Casale Monferrato factory.

The case concerns the so-called “killer factory” in the town in Piedmont’s Alessandria province. The Turin Court of Appeal will now reassess the cases referred back by the Supreme Court. Schmidheiny is accused of aggravated manslaughter, while the court’s decision does not confirm the prison term sought by prosecutors.

The Attorney General’s Office had asked for the nine-year-and-six-month sentence to stand. The Supreme Court rejected that request and ordered the new appeal hearing for the cases involving about 60 victims. The ruling therefore keeps those proceedings alive, while the statute of limitations definitively bars claims concerning the additional 25. The Court of Cassation had quashed an earlier appeal judgment in February after a translation error invalidated the verdict.

Schmidheiny managed the Eternit factory in Casale Monferrato from 1976 to 1986. The site, in Piedmont, is at the centre of proceedings over asbestos pollution and deaths linked to mesothelioma. The Supreme Court’s ruling returns the relevant cases to a different section of the Turin Court of Appeal for a new assessment.

The proceedings have already been reshaped by a procedural issue. Just over a year ago, Schmidheiny’s defence lawyers succeeded in having the case set aside because the second-instance judgment had not been translated into German. The February ruling by the Court of Cassation also quashed the appeal judgment after a translation error negated the verdict.

Those earlier decisions have formed part of a long-running legal fight involving a Swiss industrialist and deaths in an Italian town. The latest ruling leaves the appeal process in motion for about 60 victims, while the limitation ruling ends the claims involving 25 others. The proceedings will now continue in Turin.

Families of the victims gathered outside the Supreme Court building after the judgment, holding a banner calling for justice, research and remediation. Their reaction came as the ruling divided the cases: some will return to appeal, while claims involving 25 victims are definitively time-barred.

“We need to understand, we need to understand,” relatives said, according to the Italian news agency askanews. Inside the packed courtroom, relatives remained silent as the president of the Fourth Section read the decision. The case has consequences for families in Casale Monferrato and keeps a Swiss businessman’s Italian legal proceedings active.

For Schmidheiny, the Supreme Court rejected prosecutors’ request to confirm a nine-year-and-six-month prison term. The fresh appeal hearing will now take place before another section of the Turin Court of Appeal, focused on about 60 victims. The outcome marks the next stage in a case that has repeatedly returned to the courts over both alleged responsibility and procedural questions.