The facts 

With application no. 9993/24, lodged on 5 April, 2024 before the European Court of Human Rights, Audrey Carmen Manuela Ubeda and her minor children, identified as A.P. and M.P., brought an action alleging the failure of Italian authorities to adequately assess their allegations of domestic violence and the lack of appropriate protective measures. 

The applications follows a previous complaint with the police, dating April 2021, in which the woman reported the multiple episodes of physical, psychological, economic and sexual violence suffered by her and the couple’s minor children at the hands of her former cohabitant and partner G.P..

On that occasion, the first applicant explained that, after the birth of her second child and their move to Italy, the three of them lived in a constant climate of terror, exacerbated by the father’s aggressive behaviors and physical abuse towards them. 

Among the various death threats witnessed by the woman, one episode was particularly alarming: the perpetrator, after placing a knife under her throat, sarcastically mocked her about future femicide and his ultimate appearance on television. In addition to these threats, Ms Ubeda reported repeated sexual assaults, often in the same bed of her minor child, as well as the explicit and nagging sexual conducts, aimed at forcing her to have non-consensual intercourse with him. 

The parallel proceedings

Following the complaint and the subsequent referral of the case to the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Benevento District Court in May 2021, Ms Ubeda and her two children were placed in a dedicated shelter, upon her request. They remained there for over three years, due to severe delays in the proceedings and inadequate assessments. 

In November 2021, the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case lodged a request for the discontinuance of the proceedings, dismissing some of the above mentioned episodes of violence as “bad joke” and even stating that “ it [was] normal for men to have to overcome a minimum level of resistance” from women to their sexual advances. Following a firm objection by the first applicant, the case was reassigned six months later. Nevertheless, repeated postponements delayed G.P. 's first hearing, charged with allegations of domestic violence and ill-treatments against all applicants, to 14 January 2025. However, at the time of the parties' submission of observations before the ECtHR, no hearing had yet taken place, leaving the victims without a judicial response within a reasonable time. 

Parallel to the criminal proceeding, in May 2021, Ms. Ubeda brought an action before the Juvenile Court of Naples, relying on articles 330 and 337 bis of the Civil Code. 

On that occasion, the applicant sought sole custody of the children, the removal of G.P.’s parental responsibility, authorization to move to France, in order to benefit from the support of her family, and child maintenance. Although the woman had repeatedly reported the climate of terror they were constantly subjected to, the Court took more than three years to deliver a final decision on the removal of G.P. 's parental responsibility, which arrived only in May 2024. 

Moreover, the social evaluation ordered by the Juvenile Court required the participation of the children in supervised meetings with their father, ignoring the concerns expressed by their mother and the children’s unwillingness to see the abusive father. It was only after an aggressive incident during the fourth meeting in June 2022 that the Court decided to provisionally suspend the father’s parental responsibility and the meetings. 

With the same decision, the judge prescribed psychological support for the minors and confirmed their continued stay in the shelter. 

These circumstances, alongside the repeatedly denied requests to leave, the confined living spaces and strict internal rules regarding schedules and curfews, constituted an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicants’ freedoms, as well as a significant risk to their emotional and relational development. 

A first response to their requests to transfer only arrived in August 2023, when the Court allowed the family to spend the month in France with the maternal grandparents. Subsequently, in March 2024, the Court subjected their relocation to the economic independence of the mother, as well as the possession of a proper accommodation. For this purpose, the Court even suggested a property belonging to the maternal grandparents in Vallesaccarda; however, Ms. Ubeda rejected this option, considering it inadequate to secure their safety, as the municipality was also the primary residency of the perpetrator and his family. 

As already mentioned, only in May 2024 the Court delivered the final decision on the removal of G.P.’s parental responsibility, even though it failed to address the mother’s requests to settle in France and left unresolved the issues related to the sole custody of the children and their maintenance. 

Mother and children were finally able to leave the protected shelter only on 8 July 2024, three years after their arrival.

In order no. 4595 of February 2025, the Court of Cassation ruled on the merits of a similar case regarding child custody, stating that the assessment of domestic abuse carried out by the civil courts must proceed autonomously and independently of any delays or findings in criminal investigations. On that occasion, the Court clarified that a potential criminal punishments of the person responsible, alone, was not sufficient to protect the victims of domestic violence. Hence, a rapid, timely and thorough intervention by the civil judge remains necessary. Judges, in fact, have at their disposal specific mechanisms designed to guarantee the immediate safety of the victims, such as the possibility of ordering the removal of the perpetrator from the family house, and to prevent the escalation of violence. 

Additionally, in order no.11631 of April 2024, the Court of Cassation also emphasized the duty of national judges to interpret domestic law in conformity with the Istanbul Convention, highlighting that one of its main objectives is the prevention of any form of secondary victimization, particularly in civil proceedings where allegations of domestic violence arise. Consequently, in proceeding concerning parental responsibility where abuse is alleged, judges must ensure that the adopted measures, including the length of placement in protected shelters, do not result in further restrictions on the rights and freedoms of the victims, hence, avoiding the risk of secondary victimization. 

The application before the ECtHR 

In order to face the inaction of the Italian judicial system and its inefficiency in protecting victims of domestic violence, Ms. Ubeda and her children brought an action before the European Court of human rights, alleging a combined violation of articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR. 

Specifically, the applicants complained of the Italian authorities’ failure to fulfill their positive obligations of protection and effective investigation, both in the civil and criminal proceedings.  Although the authorities had reacted relatively promptly to the initial complaint by placing the family in a protected shelter, no precautionary or protective measures, including restraining orders, were adopted against the perpetrator. Contrarily, it was the applicants who were subjected to disproportionate and unjustified measures, among which their forced three-years placement in the shelter. This prolonged stay resulted in a disproportionate interference with their private and family life, exacerbated by the Juvenile Court’s failure to address custody, transfer and child maintenance issues. These circumstances contributed to the increase of their state of anxiety, stress and fear of further acts of violence, subjected them to a serious risk of secondary victimization in the courtroom, a risk that had already materialized in the prosecutor’s request for discontinuance based on gender stereotypes and cultural prejudices. 

The judgement by the Court

Following the rejection of the objection raised by the Italian Government concerning the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court declared the application admissible and well founded on the merits. 

While acknowledging the prompt response of the Italian authorities to the woman’s complaint, by placing them in protective care, the Court states that this measure imposed a greater burden on the applicants than on the perpetrator of the crimes himself. While the mother and her children were subjected to numerous restrictions on their freedoms, no measures were imposed on G.P.. Consequently, the Court holds that the authorities did not adopt these measures in a proportionate manner and failed to consider alternatives, such as the possibility of assigning the family house to Ms. Ubeda and her children, or of authorizing their transfer to France. 

Therefore, the Court finds that the proceedings conducted by the Italian authorities did not meet the requirement for a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation. Specifically, the Public Prosecutor’s request to discontinue the case in favor of G.P., dating November 2021, alongside the attempts to justify the episodes of physical and sexual violence as “bad jokes” or due to the difficulty in the evaluation of that “minimum level of resistance that all women oppose in those circumstances”, exacerbated the risk of secondary victimization in the courtroom, in light of what was already stressed by the report of the Council of Europe’s GREVIO expert group (see Yearbook 2026). 

Overall, Italian authorities failed to recognize the complexity of the dynamics of domestic violence and to guarantee measures proportionate to the gravity of the facts, ultimately exposing victims to a serious risk of secondary victimization. 

As a result, the ECtHR holds that there has been a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. 

Concerning the conduct of the Juvenile Court of Naples in relation to its unjustified and disproportionate interference in the applicants’ private and family life (relying on articles 8 ECHR), the Court highlighted how the prolonged placement in the shelter, the confined spaces, and the strict internal rules concurred to the children’s psychological suffering, distress and fear. In addition, there was the decision to impose four supervised meetings with their father, regardless of the mother’s concerns and the minors’ unwillingness and suspended only after an aggressive behavior by G.P. during one of them. According to the ECtHR, the District Court’s decisions, drafted using a pre-printed template, failed to adequately address the allegations of domestic violence and the applicants’ depositions, thereby exacerbating the sense of impunity regarding the violence perpetrated against them. 

Finally, the removal of the father’s parental responsibility, which did not occur until May 2024 and made no mention of the related requests for child maintenance, sole custody, and the transfer of the family to France, proved the Court’s inability to guarantee the best interests of the children. 

Overall, the Court holds that there has been a violation of article 8 of the ECHR, specifically in relation to the Juvenile Court’s inaction on the issues of sole custody and their prolonged stay in the shelter. 

Concerning the claim for damages, the Court imposes to the Italian State to pay 15,000 euros to each applicant as compensation for non-pecuniary damages, as well as 15,000 euros jointly in respect of costs and expenses. 

The precedents of the ECtHR case law against Italy 

The ruling in the case Ubeda and Others v. Italy is not an isolated incident in the European Court of Human Rights’ case law regarding Italy; rather, it locates within a broader line of case law that proves the failure of the Italian judicial system in the prevention and opposition to gender and domestic violence. 

Generally, the evictions by the Strasbourg judges focused on two main issues: the practice of Italian courts of blaming mothers who are victims of domestic violence through inappropriate judgements on parental responsibility or child custody, and instances of inaction or delay in the adoption of appropriate measures to protect the victims. 

In line with the findings of the GREVIO’s report, the Court has repeatedly stated that although the Italian system has numerous normative and operational instruments, aimed at protecting the victims, it still presents serious shortcomings in terms of effectively guaranteeing such protection. 

This assessment finds confirmation in the decisions taken by the Court in the rulings Landi, De Giorgi and M.S. v. Italy (see Yearbook 2022). All these proceedings concluded with a finding against the Italian authorities, guilty of failing to act with the necessary diligence in initiating prompt and effective investigations and of responding belatedly and ineffectively to the allegations of gender and domestic violence. 

In this context, the ruling of Ubeda and Others v. Italy emphasizes, once more, the necessity of a cultural and procedural shift within the Italian judicial system. Only by ensuring timely and effective protection, which does not culminate into further restrictions on victims’ freedoms or forms of secondary victimization, will it be possible to guarantee a fair, authentic and immediate response from the Italian justice system.