The communication between the father and the child, in the presence of the mother,after divorce, violates the right to family life
JUDGMENT
Improta v. Italy 04-05-2017 (no. 66396/14)
SUMMARY
Right to father-daughter communication without the presence of the mother. Right to family life. The case concerned the applicant’s inability to exercise the right of communication due to the reaction of the mother of the child. The ECtHR considered that the father of the child should communicate with the child without interruption and without the presence of the mother. The Court found that Italy violated family life because the italian authorities were unable to restore the father’s communication with the child
PROVISION
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Mr Giammarco Improta, is an Italian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Pozzuoli (Italy). The case concerned his inability to exercise his right of contact because of the opposition of his child’s mother.
Shortly after his daughter was born on 25 March 2010, Mr Improta separated from the child’s mother. She changed the lock at the family home and decided unilaterally that Mr Improta could only see his daughter twice a week for half an hour, with the mother present.
In November 2010 Mr Improta applied to the Naples Youth Court for shared custody of the child and more extensive contact. The Youth Court instructed the revenue police to carry out an inspection to determine the living standards of Mr Improta and the child’s mother and ordered an expert report about the quality of their personal relations and their parenting ability. The expert report was also required to indicate the best custody arrangements for the child.
In January 2013 the expert report was filed at the registry. It stated, in particular, that the two parents should be granted joint custody and that the father should be guaranteed the possibility of seeing his daughter without the mother being present. In a decision of 2 July 2013 the Youth Court awarded custody to both parents jointly, ruled that the child’s main place of residence should be with her mother and set out the contact arrangements for the father. Mr Improta appealed, seeking more extensive contact. In a judgment of 19 March 2014 the Naples Court of Appeal upheld the Youth Court’s decision. Mr Improta appealed on points of law. The proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant submitted that the domestic courts had not safeguarded his right of contact, thus irretrievably undermining his relationship with his daughter.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 12,000 (costs and expenses)
