Source: Il Sole 24 Ore - NT+ Diritto

A court-appointed expert in classical graphology performed detailed instrumental analysis and comparison spanning document samples from 1988 to 2008, concluding that the two-part holographic will presented after the 2009 death of A.R.M. was grossly false, with at least one page and signatures not authored by the deceased. After the expert phase had closed, the losing party argued that biometric comparison with artificial intelligence should have been used as an additional method. The party’s expert had not suggested or applied these methodologies before the conclusion of the expert activities.

The Tribunal of Cagliari, second civil section, presided by Antonio Angioi, issued a ruling on 20 March 2026 (sentence no. 724/2026) holding that the late invocation of AI-based procedures could not be accepted because no reasons were provided showing that these methods would rationally lead to a different result. The court emphasized that parties who invoke AI must demonstrate the specific usefulness of such technology in the concrete case. The ruling also highlighted the role of the human expert who signs the technical report and remains responsible for the conclusions, considering AI as a supportive tool rather than a standalone solution.