The ECtHR becomes the bridge of communication between father and child after the separation of parents
JUDGMENT
Endrizzi v. Italy 23-03-2017 (no. 71660/14)
SUMMARY
Communication between child and father. Right to family life. The applicant complained that he was unable to exercise his rights of communication with regard to his son, who lived with his mother in Sicily. After the separation, the wife took the young child and moved to her family in Sicily. The court gave the father a right of communication. However, his ex-wife has hindered this communication, and as a result the case is still pending before the national courts. Referring to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant claimed that there had been a violation of the right to respect for his family life, as despite various court decisions he was unable to exercise his rights of communication with his child. The ECtHR held that Article 8 of the Convention had been violated.
COMMENT
Preventing minor childhood communication with his / her parent constitutes a violation of his / her family life.
PROVISION
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Pierpaolo Endrizzi, is an Italian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Caldes. He complained that he had been unable to exercise his contact rights in respect of his son who had been living with his mother in Sicily.
On 11 January 2005 a child was born to Mr Endrizzi and his wife T.L.G.. In July 2005 T.L.G. left home with the child to go and live with her family in Sicily, about 1,000 km away. In July 2007 a judge in Trento declared the couple separated. The parents were given joint custody of the child and the child was to live principally with his mother in Sicily, while the father had very extensive rights of visiting and staying contact. After her separation from Mr Endrizzi, T.L.G. strongly opposed any relations between the father and the child, then aged two. Their dispute was brought before the courts and proceedings are still pending.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Endrizzi alleged that there had been a violation of his right to respect for his family life. He complained that he had been unable to exercise his contact rights since 2007, in spite of a number of judicial decisions. He alleged that the social services had used excessive freedom in implementing the court’s decisions and that the court had not exercised sufficient scrutiny over their work.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,266.81 (costs and expenses).
