Case Scalzo v. Italy – 8790/21 – 6.12.2022

The case of Maria Scalzo concerned her inability to establish her biological paternity due to Italian legal provisions and the excessive length of judicial proceedings. The applicant, born in 1954, was officially registered as the daughter of her mother’s husband, but she claimed that her biological father was another man, T.M.

In 2010, Maria Scalzo and her brother initiated proceedings before the Catanzaro court to contest the legal paternity of their presumed father. Although in 2015 the court of first instance confirmed that C. Scalzo was not the biological father of the children, the proceedings did not result in a final judgment, as one of the brothers filed an appeal and later a cassation complaint. By the time the case reached the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – twelve years later – the proceedings were still pending.

Meanwhile, in 2016, Maria Scalzo attempted to bring a separate action to establish the paternity of T.M. However, the Rome court dismissed her claim as inadmissible, stating that the proceeding to deny the legal fatherhood had not yet been definitively concluded. In practice, this meant that the applicant had no access to proceedings that could allow her to establish her biological origin. She lived for many years in a state of uncertainty about her identity, which she argued violated her right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR.

The ECtHR agreed with her. It found that while Italian law theoretically allowed paternity proceedings, in practice, the applicable rules and judicial delays had prevented her from exercising this right. The Court held that the state had failed in its positive obligation to provide effective and timely means for determining biological parentage. As a result, it found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

As just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant €10,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €20,000 in legal costs.

Case of I.M. and Others v. Italy – 25426/20 – 10.11.2022 

The case concerned a woman (the first applicant) and her two minor children who, for three years, were compelled by the Italian courts to attend visits with the children’s father—a man struggling with alcohol and drug addiction and accused of domestic violence against the mother. Despite serious warning signs and numerous interventions by social services, the Italian judicial system failed for a long time to provide adequate protection for the applicants.

After the mother fled the family home with the children in 2014, filed a report of abuse, and sought refuge in a shelter for victims of domestic violence, the family court still allowed the father to have contact with the children—initially under “strict supervision.” However, in practice, such supervision was not adequately enforced. Visits took place without the presence of a psychologist and often occurred in unsuitable locations, such as public libraries or city squares, exposing the children to stress and further emotional harm.

Despite multiple reports highlighting the father's inappropriate behaviour—including aggression and verbally abusing the mother in front of the children—the courts failed to take adequate protective measures. Moreover, the mother was labelled by the court as an “uncooperative parent”. She was temporarily deprived of her parental authority, even though her actions were aimed at shielding the children from further trauma.

The ECtHR held that the Italian state had failed to fulfil its positive obligations under Article 8 ECHR. It found that the authorities did not ensure safe conditions for the children during visits with their father and failed to conduct a proper risk assessment. The Court also suggested that the Italian system displayed a systemic tendency to label mothers who report abuse as “uncooperative,” which may result in their secondary victimisation.

Case of T.C. v. Italy – 54032/18 – 19.05. 2022 

The case T.C. v. Italy concerned a man who is a Jehovah’s Witness and who alleged that the Italian authorities violated his parental rights and religious freedom during custody proceedings involving his daughter. He claimed that he was unfairly restricted in his ability to share his religious beliefs and practices with her, while the child’s mother faced no comparable limitations. He viewed this disparity as a form of discrimination based on religion. Additionally, the applicant argued that the excessive length of the proceedings had a negative impact on his relationship with his daughter. On these grounds, he invoked several provisions of the ECHR: Article 8, in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Article 9 (freedom of religion), and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality of rights and responsibilities between spouses in family matters).

The Court examined whether there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights. In its judgment, the Court declared the application partially inadmissible.

The Court held that the Italian authorities were entitled to limit the applicant’s religious influence on his daughter where necessary to protect her well-being. It found no sufficient evidence that he had been treated unequally solely due to his religious beliefs, and concluded that the restrictions imposed were neither discriminatory nor disproportionate. Furthermore, the overall duration of the custody proceedings did not significantly exceed reasonable limits or have a severely detrimental impact on the father–daughter relationship. The ECtHR ultimately concluded that the state’s actions were justified, proportionate, and did not amount to a violation of the applicant’s rights under the Convention.

Case of D.M. and N. v. Italy – 60083/19 – 20.01.2022 

The case concerned a Cuban national (D.M.) residing in Italy, and her daughter (N.), who was declared adoptable by decision of the Italian courts. The applicant alleged that this decision violated her right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, as it was taken without sufficient justification and without first exhausting less drastic measures that could have preserved the mother–child bond.

The case began in 2013, when D.M. reported domestic violence by her partner, the child’s father, and moved with her daughter into a shelter for victims of abuse. Initially, assessments of her parenting abilities were positive. However, social workers later submitted concerning reports, citing inappropriate parenting methods, social media activity, and allegedly sexualized behaviour in the child. Based on these reports, the Brescia court declared the child adoptable and ordered the complete severance of contact with her mother.

Throughout the proceedings, D.M. repeatedly requested expert psychological assessments of both her parenting abilities and her daughter’s mental state, but requests were denied. Both the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance decision, asserting that the observations made and the reports gathered by social services were sufficient to support the decision.

The ECtHR found that there had been a violation of Article 8. It emphasised that a decision leading to the complete and irreversible severance of family ties must meet a particularly high standard of scrutiny and should only be taken in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the domestic courts failed to adequately assess the family’s situation, relying primarily on subjective reports and neglecting to conduct any expert evaluations. Moreover, no real attempts were made to maintain the family bond or to implement less intrusive support measures.

The Court awarded the applicants €42,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €10,000 in legal costs. It also called on the Italian authorities to reassess the case and consider restoring contact between the mother and daughter, provided that doing so would be in the child’s best interests.

Case of Fiagbe v. Italy – 18549/20 – 28.04.2022 

The case Fiagbe v. Italy concerned a Ghanaian woman, Angela Sedina Fiagbe, who complained about the Italian authorities’ failure to maintain her relationship with her son, who had been placed in foster care in 2016. The ECtHR found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Ms. Fiagbe had arrived in Italy as a child and gave birth to her son at the age of 18. After concerns were raised about her ability to care for him, the child was placed with her in a residential facility, and her parenting capacities were evaluated. Despite initial signs of emotional fragility, experts noted her affectionate and attentive behaviour toward the child. Over the years, various psychiatric assessments were conducted, with recommendations for psychotherapeutic support for both mother and child.

Despite court orders to develop a plan to support Ms. Fiagbe’s parenting and to facilitate reunification, the social services failed to organise the required visits. Between 2017 and 2022, there was no contact between the mother and her son, who remained in foster care. The ECtHRCourt emphasised that this five-year interruption, in the absence of abuse or violence, was not properly justified by the domestic courts, especially as the mother had shown signs of improvement and willingness to reconnect. Furthermore, the authorities failed to utilise existing legal tools to enforce or monitor the obligations of social services.

The Court concluded that this prolonged inaction made it impossible for a meaningful mother-child relationship to develop, constituting a breach of Article 8. It awarded €15,000 in moral damages and €10,000 for legal costs to the applicant. 

Case of Imeri v. Italy – 24984/20 – 28.04.2022 

The case Imeri v. Italy concerned Mr. Marco Imeri, an Italian national, who alleged that the Italian authorities violated his right to respect for family life by failing to enforce his court-ordered visitation rights with his daughter, born in 2016. After the breakdown of his relationship with the child’s mother, Mr. Imeri faced persistent obstacles in maintaining contact with his daughter due to the mother’s opposition and the inaction or delays of social services and courts.

Although court decisions had gradually granted Mr. Imeri structured and later expanded visitation rights, these were poorly implemented by the authorities. Social services often organised fewer or shorter meetings than ordered. They failed and failed to transition to freer contact even after psychological reports indicated a positive bond between father and daughter and recommended broader visitation. At several points, the mother’s refusal to cooperate was allowed to de facto effectively override court decisions.

The Court emphasised that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that one parent’s obstruction does not prevent the other from exercising parental rights. It found that Italian authorities did not act with sufficient urgency or diligence. Notably, during the COVID-19 lockdown, visits were suspended even though Italian government decrees allowed movements related to parental visitation. Furthermore, although the courts had sufficient legal tools, they failed to supervise or enforce them effectively.

The ECtHR concluded that this systemic inaction and delay undermined Mr. Imeri’s right to family life, in violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court awarded him €7,000 in moral damages and €6,000 for legal costs. The judgment highlights the obligation of state authorities not just to issue parental access decisions, but to ensure they are meaningfully and promptly implemented.