Background of the Case 

The applicant, Valentina Scuderoni, born in 1982, separated from her partner, G.C., in 2017. However, she continued to live in the same residence as her former partner, along with their son. During this period, the applicant endured psychological abuse, including being forced to stay awake at night by having a light shone on her, being restricted from using certain parts of the house and her personal belongings, and experiencing the kidnapping of their son. She also accused her former partner of illegally accessing her personal and work messaging accounts, reading her private conversations with her lawyers, and using physical violence, such as grabbing her by her hair. 

As a result of this abusive treatment, she sustained injuries to her neck and scalp and was unable to work for several days.  Subsequently, she initiated civil proceedings, complaining of the ill treatment by her former partner and seeking the right to use the family residence for herself and the child, as well as establishing a contact arrangement for her former partner. 

Initially, the court scheduled the hearing for nine months after the submission of her application. The applicant requested an earlier hearing date, citing psychological and physical abuse, and submitted medical reports as supportive evidence. Additionally, she filed another application requesting a protective order, submitting criminal complaints and evidence from an ongoing criminal investigation.  

Although the court denied her request for a protective order, it granted her the right to use the family house with the child and established contact rights for her former partner. 

Subsequently, the prosecutor referred the case to the trial on charges of ill-treatment in the family, harassment, and assault in the presence of the child. However, after four years, the criminal proceedings concluded with an acquittal. The Court reasoned that the accused's behaviour was motivated by the end of the relationship, issues concerning the child's residence, and the fact that they were forced to live together. Moreover, the prosecutor rejected the applicant's request to appeal the judgment without any clarification. 

Complaints under the European Convention on Human Rights

The applicant relied on two articles: Article 3, which prohibits ill-treatment, and Article 8, which guarantees the right to respect for private life and correspondence.

The submission to the Court included several complaints:

• The abusive treatment she suffered at the hands of her former partner;
• The failure of the national court to act promptly.
• The refusal to issue a protection order despite the evidence provided.
• An inadequate criminal investigation into her allegations.
• The domestic court’s failure to assess the risk of physical and psychological abuse; and
• A complaint against the judge’s decision to acquit her former partner.

Decision of the Court 

The Court observed, in accordance with international human rights instruments, particularly the Istanbul Convention, that domestic violence constitutes a serious violation of women’s rights. In this case, the European Court of Human Rights found that the Italian authorities failed in their positive obligation under Article. 3 (Prohibition of ill treatment) and Art. 8 (Right to respect for private life and correspondence) of the Convention. 

The European court identified several shortcomings in the authorities' response, including: 

• The late scheduling of the hearing appointment, 
• The refusal of a protection order without sufficient assessment, and 
• A two-month delay of the criminal investigation. 

It further noted that, due to the lack of due diligence by the Italian authorities, there was a risk that the applicant could have been subjected to further violence. The European Court emphasised that, under the Istanbul Convention (The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence),  special diligence is required when handling cases of domestic violence to prevent future harm. 

Additionally, the European Court of Human Rights shared concerns raised in the most recent GREVIO (The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence) monitoring report on Italy, that the Italian judicial system tends to require evidence of systematic violence to recognise the crime of domestic violence under Article 572 of the Criminal Code. The court condemned this practice, which often excludes systematic behaviour in cases where: 

• The violent acts occurred over a short period of time.
• The acts occurred at the end of a relationship in which there had been no previous complaints and were seen as isolated outbursts, or 
• The victim actively resisted, which led the domestic courts to interpret this as a mutual and couple conflict rather than domestic violence. 

As a result, the Court found that domestic violence in Italy may be interpreted inconsistently. 

In the Scuderoni case, the Italian authorities failed to recognise the seriousness of the domestic violence, particularly during the criminal investigation. 

The European Court stated that the primary obligation of the Italian authorities was to carry out a comprehensive assessment, including an analysis of G.C.´s behaviour as a whole. 

This encompassed allegations of psychological and physical abuse, violation of the applicant’s right to communicate with her child, economic abuse and unauthorised access to her digital communications. Although the applicant provided sufficient evidence, the national authorities interpreted her experience as a manifestation of conflict and isolated offence rather than recognising it as systematic ill-treatment. The Court noted that the applicant had not been considered to be in a state of psychological subjugation, and criticised the inefficiency of the criminal proceedings, which lasted four years and involved four different judges. As a result, the domestic organs failed to fulfil their obligation to respond appropriately to the severity of the applicant's allegations. Moreover, the applicant was denied the opportunity to challenge the acquittal, as the prosecutor rejected the request to appeal. The European Court stressed that violence against women must be addressed with effective and dissuasive measures. Therefore, the Court concluded that the State had failed to meet its procedural obligation to ensure that complaints of violence should be properly investigated and the state organs had violated Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Conclusion 

The Scuderoni v. Italy case highlights how women’s rights, in particular in case of domestic violence are not adequately protected by the domestic judicial system. The failure of the state authorities to protect the applicant from abuse raises concerns about the inadequacies of its criminal law framework. 

The Italian organs failed to act promptly and disregarded the principle of special diligence, which is the fundamental procedural obligation in legal practice, especially under the Istanbul Convention.  Furthermore, the Court noted the shortcomings of Article 572 of the Criminal Code, which tends to exclude systematic abusive behaviour, particularly in cases characterised by mutual and couple conflicts. This provision allows perpetrators to avoid accountability for domestic violence by framing the abuse as mutual conflict, potentially even leading to the woman being accused of violence. 

As a result, the Court found that the Italian authorities had violated Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under these provisions, the authorities had a duty , in its response to the applicant’s  complaint, to adequately discharge its procedural obligation to ensure appropriate treatment of the violence suffered by Mrs Scuderoni, take immediate and effective action to protect her and to ensure that her claims were addressed with the required level of special diligence.