The multi-annual judicial war focusing on children’s communication directly affects the interests of minors and violates the ECHR
JUDGMENT
D’Alconzo v. Italy 23-02-2017 (no. 64297/12)
SUMMARY
Right to family life. Contact between father and his children. The case concerned the applicant’s inability to exercise the right of communication and contact with his two children. His former partner left for the US along with their children. The applicant denounced the matter before the judicial authorities and, through a court order, ordered the return of the children back to Italy, giving him the right to communicate with them. The former husbands began a legal battle and as a result the District Court ordered the temporary placement of children in a social services institution, pointing out that parents’ behavior caused children very serious anxiety. The same scene was repeated in the years to come. Referring to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him for sexual abuse, which, as he claimed, had destroyed his relationship with his children, and about the judgments of the national courts, which, in his opinion, had not tried to help him rebuild his relationship with his children. The Court has held that there has been an infringement of Article 8 – as regards the length of the criminal proceedings
PROVISION
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Giuseppe D’Alconzo, is an Italian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Monterosi (Italy). The case concerned the applicant’s inability to exercise his right of contact with his two children.
In January 2007 Mr D’Alconzo’s former girlfriend left Italy for the United States with their two children. Mr D’Alconzo applied to the judicial authorities seeking the return of his children. In May 2007, following proceedings for international child abduction, a court in Phoenix ordered the children’s return. They travelled back to Italy with their mother. In February 2010 the Court of Appeal placed the children in the care of social services but ruled that they should continue to live with their mother. Mr D’Alconzo was granted contact rights.
In March 2011 Mr D’Alconzo lodged a criminal complaint against his former girlfriend for child abduction. On the same day she lodged a complaint against the applicant alleging that he had indecently assaulted one of the children. For the next year Mr D’Alconzo did not see his children. At the public prosecutor’s request the District Court ordered the children’s temporary placement in a social services facility, noting that the parents’ behaviour was subjecting the children to very severe stress. In May 2011 the children were returned to their mother’s care. In September 2011 she brought a fresh complaint against Mr D’Alconzo alleging that he had indecently assaulted the other child. Mr D’Alconzo was acquitted of the indecent assault charge in May 2014.
In October 2011 the District Court ordered that meetings be arranged between Mr D’Alconzo and his children in the presence of social workers. He met his children 12 times between March and July 2012 with social workers present. No meetings took place between July 2012 and January 2013, owing to the children’s refusal and their mother’s lack of cooperation. In 2015 the applicant saw one of his children 17 times and the other 15 times.
In June 2016 the Rome Court of Appeal placed the children in the care of social services but designated their mother’s home as their main residence. It took into consideration, in particular, the conflict between the parents and their inability to make joint decisions concerning their children.
The Court of Appeal also ordered social services to provide personal support to enable Mr D’Alconzo to re-establish ties quickly with one of his children, with whom relations had been strained at recent meetings. It also instructed them to arrange meetings with the other child, initially with a social worker in attendance but with a view to subsequent unsupervised meetings. According to Mr D’Alconzo, he last saw his children in April 2016 and June 2016 respectively.
THE DECISIOPN OF THE COURT
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr D’Alconzo complained about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him for sexual abuse, which he claimed had damaged his relationship with his children, and about the decisions of the domestic courts, which in his view had not undertaken efforts to help him rebuild his relationship with his children.
Violation of Article 8 – on account of the length of the criminal proceedings No violation of Article 8 – concerning the measures taken by the authorities to enforce contact rights Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 7,000 (costs and expenses)
