Background
The first applicant, a French national, lodged a criminal complaint on 16 April 2021 against her former cohabitant alleging that between 2018 and 2020 he perpetrated physical and psychological violence against her and their two minor children, subjected her to sexual assault (including repeated rape), and created a climate of terror. The complaint detailed specific incidents, including an October 2019 incident where he held a knife to her throat while a television news programme reported on femicides. The first applicant alleged he beat the children with a belt, made death threats, exercised economic control, and subjected her to non-consensual sexual acts multiple times over several months in 2020. She also initiated civil custody proceedings before the Juvenile Court on 6 May 2021 seeking sole custody, removal of the father’s parental responsibility, authorization to relocate to France with the children, and child maintenance.
The applicants were placed in a domestic violence shelter on 24 May 2021. The public prosecutor initially sought to discontinue the criminal proceedings in November 2021, stating that the knife incident was a “bad joke,” that physical punishment of the children constituted legitimate parental discipline, and that the sexual violence allegations were not established because it was “normal for men to have to overcome a minimum level of resistance that every woman tend[ed] to display when she [was] tired from daily life.” An objection to discontinuance was upheld in January 2022, and a new prosecutor was appointed. The case proceeded slowly through preliminary investigation phases. By the time the parties submitted observations to the Court, no trial hearing had been held—more than three years after the initial complaint.
In the civil proceedings, the Juvenile Court appointed a guardian for the children in July 2021 and scheduled hearings. During supervised visits organized in May-June 2022, the children consistently expressed fear of their father, refused contact, and on one occasion hid in their mother’s car to avoid seeing him. The court provisionally suspended his parental responsibility in June 2022. However, the final decision on the custody proceedings was delayed repeatedly. The court did not issue its final decision withdrawing his parental responsibility until 9 May 2024—nearly three years after the initial filing. The decision did not address the mother’s requests for authorization to relocate to France or for child maintenance. The applicants remained in the shelter until 8 July 2024, having spent over three years in the protected facility.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. The Court held that Italy had failed to discharge its positive obligations to effectively investigate the allegations of domestic and sexual violence and to protect the applicants from the risk of further harm. Regarding the criminal investigation, the Court emphasized that while the investigation itself was not entirely ineffective, the proceedings were not “prompt, thorough or effective” as required. The delays between April 2021 and September 2024—with no trial hearing held—breached the procedural protection required under Article 3. Most significantly, the Court found that the public prosecutor’s reasons for initially seeking discontinuance “reflected a sexist and stereotyped culture that had to be avoided in the courtrooms of the domestic judiciary.” The prosecutor’s statements trivialized the knife threat as a joke, recharacterized violent beatings of children as legitimate discipline, and articulated a harmful stereotype that minimized sexual violence by suggesting that women’s resistance to sexual advances was a normal negotiation rather than lack of consent.
On the issue of protective measures, the Court held that while the shelter placement was initially appropriate, the authorities’ failure to regularly assess its necessity and proportionality over three years amounted to a violation. The applicants’ placement in the shelter for over three years imposed a heavier burden on them than on the alleged perpetrator, particularly as the shelter’s internal restrictions (prohibition on leaving between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m., restricted Sunday afternoon activities) negatively affected the children’s education, sports, and social development. Multiple expert reports documented the children’s severe psychological distress, unusual behavioral responses (anger, physical and mental fatigue, episodes of incontinence in the younger child), and repeated expressed desire to leave the shelter and resume normal life. The Court found that the authorities failed to consider alternative protective measures and did not conduct ongoing assessments of whether continued shelter placement remained necessary.
Regarding the civil custody proceedings, the Court found a separate violation of Article 8. The Juvenile Court’s inertia in deciding the applicants’ claims over three years—with the final decision merely withdrawing parental responsibility without addressing requests to relocate to France or for child maintenance—failed to satisfy the requirement to act with “due diligence and promptness.” The Court emphasized that the domestic violence allegations were effectively disregarded in the civil proceedings, “reinforcing and prolonging her suffering, as well as her perception that the violence she endured remained undetected.” The protracted uncertainty about the father’s parental status and the children’s living arrangements created a prolonged climate of uncertainty. The Court noted that the children’s extended stay in the shelter, which was not subject to regular reassessment, had significant negative consequences for their psychological and physical well-being.
Key Takeaways
- State authorities have positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 to effectively investigate allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault and to adopt adequate protective measures.
- Judicial and prosecutorial decisions reflecting sexist stereotypes, gender-based assumptions, or minimization of violence constitute violations of Convention rights, particularly when such reasoning leads to failures to protect.
- Protective measures such as shelter placement, while initially justified, must be regularly reassessed for necessity and proportionality; indefinite placement without ongoing evaluation violates Convention rights.
- Undue delays in both criminal and civil proceedings concerning domestic violence breach the procedural protections of Articles 3 and 8, particularly where children’s safety and welfare are at stake.
- Civil courts deciding custody matters must promptly and thoroughly address allegations of domestic violence and the safety needs of victims, including requests for relocation away from the perpetrator.
Why It Matters
This judgment holds Italy accountable for systemic failures in protecting domestic violence victims and their children across multiple legal proceedings. It is particularly significant for establishing that discriminatory reasoning—such as the prosecutor’s stereotypical views about women’s resistance to sexual advances—can itself constitute a violation of Convention protections. The decision reinforces that the Istanbul Convention (which Italy had ratified and which the Court of Cassation had recognized as binding) imposes real legal obligations requiring state authorities to move beyond formalistic compliance with victim-protection laws and instead to implement them with genuine diligence and free from gender-based stereotypes. The case demonstrates the intersecting failures of criminal and civil systems: the criminal investigation stalled while victims remained confined to a shelter for years awaiting a civil court decision that, when finally issued, failed to address their core requests (relocation, maintenance). The judgment emphasizes that protective measures cannot become indefinite substitutes for meaningful justice; prolonged shelter placement without reassessment itself becomes a harm requiring justification.
For legal practitioners and policymakers, the decision underscores that domestic violence cases require expedited proceedings, specialized training to eliminate stereotyped reasoning, regular assessment of protective measures, and coordination between criminal and civil forums. The Court’s criticism of Italian judicial practice will likely inform implementation of Legislative Decree no. 149/2022, which introduced fast-track procedures and enhanced protections for domestic violence victims in civil custody proceedings. The judgment also reflects growing international scrutiny of Italy’s handling of such cases, as evidenced by GREVIO’s reports cited in the opinion noting that Italian civil courts had historically “failed to detect” or had “ignored” instances of violence.