CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 13 juillet 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3C38CC87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s93AE2BFC { width:16.52pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5CD64447 { width:5.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9D9D6BED { width:133.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5D5DC104 { width:5.51pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70C113D1 { width:120.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDE3FA110 { width:213.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s72BE43DE { width:231.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s40E223D1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC2096303 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBDC18A57 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s24C63AC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s397ED72C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s61BF121A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13ADA85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.3pt } .s7BBD7C32 { width:1.26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA88AA7F5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4F71E00A { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:21.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4442EB1B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379756F8 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC53DE64C { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE7EF51C4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFB63EB62 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA8757A23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF5932557 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C1A34E8 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s498509A2 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6E97E8AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8DCCCE3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s4DECE301 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .sBF5D39F2 { width:271.59pt; display:inline-block } .sF03E6739 { width:265.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCDB6710E { width:13.11pt; display:inline-block } .s330E12DF { width:11.11pt; display:inline-block } .s9F5EB09C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s8B9270AB { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:105.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s834A0471 { width:220.15pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }                   CASE OF SCOZZARI AND GIUNTA v. ITALY   (Applications nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   13 July 2000       In the case of Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy , The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:   Mr   L. Wildhaber , President ,   Mr   J.-P. Costa ,   Mr   L. Ferrari Bravo ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   T. Panţîru ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   C. Russo , ad hoc judge , and also of Mr M. de Salvia , Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 26 January and 5 July 2000, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case was referred to the Court, in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) [1] , by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) and by the Italian Government (“the Government”) on 4   December 1998 and 21 January 1999 respectively (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 and former Articles 47 and 48 of the Convention). 2.     The case originated in two applications (nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, which have been joined) against the Italian Republic. The first applicant, Mrs Dolorata Scozzari, a Belgian and Italian national currently living at Figline Valdarno, is also acting on behalf of her children, G., who was born in 1987 and has dual Belgian and Italian nationality, and M., who was born in 1994 and has Italian nationality. The second applicant, Mrs Carmela Giunta, is an Italian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Brussels. Since the end of 1998 she has also had a home in Italy. She is the first applicant's mother. 3.     The first applicant lodged the first application with the Commission on 9 December 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention. Both applicants subsequently lodged the second application with the Commission on 16 June 1998. The applications were joined on 8 July 1998. 4.     The first applicant alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the decision of the Florence Youth Court to suspend all relations between her and her children and to place them with “Il Forteto”, a community, and of the fact that she was unable to see her younger son. The second applicant complained that no consideration had been given to the possibility of her being given the care of the children. The applicants also complained of violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 14 of the Convention, on account of the delay in hearing their appeals and of allegedly discriminatory treatment. Lastly, the first applicant complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of allegedly inhuman treatment inflicted on the children in the community, and of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 on the ground that the arrangements made for the children's schooling were, in her submission, insufficient. 5.     On 10 March 1998 the Commission declared part of the first application (no. 39221/98) inadmissible. On 15 September 1998 it declared the second application (no. 41963/98) and the remainder of the first application admissible. In its report of 2 December 1998 (former Article 31 of the Convention) [2] , it expressed the opinion that   there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention as a result of the suspension of the first applicant's parental rights or of the fact that her children had been taken into care (twenty-four votes to one); there had been no violation of Article 8 as a result of the children being placed at “Il Forteto” (thirteen votes to twelve); there had been a violation of Article 8 as a result of the suspension of all contact between the first applicant and her children (twenty-one votes to four). The Commission also expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been no violation of Article   3 of the Convention or of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the second applicant, and that no separate issue arose under Article 6 § 1 and Article 14 of the Convention. 6.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr U. Leanza, Head of the Diplomatic Disputes Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 7.     On 3 February 1999 a panel of the Grand Chamber determined that the case would be decided by the Grand Chamber (Rule 100 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Mr B. Conforti, the judge elected in respect of Italy, who had taken part in the Commission's examination of the case, withdrew from sitting in the Grand Chamber (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr C. Russo to sit in his place as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 8.     The applicants filed memorials on 3 March, 16 July and 22 September 1999 and the respondent Government on 9 December 1998, 1 March, 6 and 10 April, 5 and 19 July, and 10 September 1999. Observations were also received from the Belgian Government, which had exercised its right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 61 § 2). 9.     A hearing took place in private in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 January 2000. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Italian Government Mr   V. Esposito , magistrato , on secondment     to the Diplomatic Disputes Department,     Ministry of Foreign Affairs,   Co-Agent , (b)     for the applicants Mrs   A Mazzarri , of the Livorno Bar   Counsel , Mrs   D. Scozzari , Mrs   C. Giunta ,   Applicants ; (c)     for the Belgian Government Mrs   A. Davis , Mrs   M. Gillet ,   Counsel .   The Court heard addresses by them.   10.     On 8 March 2000 the Court viewed video recordings of the contact visits on 29 April and 9 September 1999, which the respondent Government had produced on 2 February 2000. The Court considered that the case was ready for decision and that it was not necessary to accede to the further request of the parties and the Belgian Government for additional investigations. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Events leading up to the intervention of the authorities in the first applicant's family life 11.     The first applicant met N.A., the father of her children, in Belgium while he was in prison. He had been sentenced on 17 February 1984 to a life term of forced labour for offences that included robbery and attempted murder. He had several previous convictions for offences including theft, indecent exposure in the presence of a child aged under 15 and rape of a minor aged between 10 and 14 (for the latter two offences he was given a pardon and his sentence was reduced). The sentence of forced labour for life was subsequently reduced to twenty-seven years' forced labour following a pardon in 1991. 12.     The elder child was born while N.A. was still in prison. Subsequently, the first applicant and N.A. married. On an unspecified date in 1993 N.A. failed to return to the prison and has remained on the Belgian authorities' wanted list ever since. In fact, N.A. and the first applicant had travelled to Italy with their child. 13.     In February 1994 the younger son was born. However, the atmosphere in the family had begun to deteriorate. Arguments between the parents became worse and ended in outbursts of violence against the first applicant, who subsequently lodged a complaint against her husband (the Court has not been informed of the outcome of those proceedings). 14.     In the meantime, M.L., a social worker employed by social services in the Florence region, had built up a good relationship with the first applicant's family. He was a former drug addict and was responsible for counselling a number of children from problem families who had been taken into care. He offered to look after the first applicant's elder son without payment at weekends. She accepted, since both she and her husband were working, she had to look after the baby, and social services did not provide assistance with children over weekends without charge. 15.     Shortly afterwards the elder son started to have health problems. The first applicant took him to hospital several times but the problems were initially attributed to an inadequate diet. 16.     In November 1996 the first applicant said that she did not want M.L. to visit her son any more. He then started to see the child at the first applicant's home and only in the presence of his parents. The first applicant sought to stop him seeing her son, but that had psychological repercussions on the boy, who tried to see M.L. without his parents' knowledge. 17.     A short while later the boy informed a friend of the family about “unusual games” in which M.L. had persuaded him to participate on several occasions. On learning of their son's admission, the first applicant and her husband lodged a formal complaint with the police on 2 February 1997. 18.     An investigation was started. The investigators rapidly discovered a number of factors showing M.L. to be at the centre of a paedophile ring. In particular, he was accused of having indecently assaulted several children since 1986 by taking advantage of his connections with social services and his role as a social worker (some of his presumed victims had been placed in homes and one even entrusted into his care by the Palermo Youth Court). M.L. was also accused of selling photographs taken during his sexual encounters with children, including the first applicant's elder son, and of running a drug-trafficking ring. 19.     On 6 June 1997 the investigating judge ordered, inter alia , M.L.'s arrest. The judge noted that M.L., a former drug addict, had feigned a desire to reform and thereby succeeded in gaining access to public institutions responsible for the protection of children and had taken advantage of the children that both individuals and the public authorities had entrusted into his care. He was convicted at the end of the proceedings at first instance. 20.     Meanwhile, social services began to examine the situation of the first applicant's family more closely. In a report of 30 January 1997, the case worker, Mrs S.G., stated that there was a serious conflict between the parents (the first applicant had complained about the situation to various authorities the previous summer) and difficulties in securing their effective cooperation. In a second report of 7 February 1997 a deterioration in the situation was noted. Furthermore, Mrs S.G. said that the younger child was not attending nursery school regularly because of minor ailments, while the elder child was described by his teachers as an intelligent and very active child. 21.     On 25 February 1997 the Florence Youth Court ordered that the children and their mother should stay in a home designated by social services. It referred in particular to the complaint concerning the sexual abuse allegedly suffered by the first applicant's elder son. 22.     In a report of 12 March 1997, social services indicated that it was difficult to find a home ready to accommodate both the children and their mother. Moreover, the first applicant had refused to be separated from her children and the elder boy had said that he wanted to stay with her. All three were provisionally accommodated in a hostel ran by Caritas, a charity. On the first applicant's initiative, the children began to attend school again. Social services also described the first applicant in that report as being unstable and fragile. 23.     In March 1997 social services noted that it was impossible for Caritas to continue to provide a home for the first applicant. They also said that she seemed incapable of following a suitable programme for the protection of the children and that there were doubts as to her effective capacity to look after them. In addition, she had continued to see a man both on and off the premises and indicated that she wanted to return home, as her husband was no longer violent towards her. 24.     A neuropsychiatrist employed by the local health authority stated in a report of 9 June 1997 that the first applicant appeared to be suffering from personality disorders. The relevant passages from the report read as follows: “... Mrs ... appears incapable of gauging reality and adapting her behaviour appropriately. She seems very confused about how to recount matters and about irrational acts. She is incapable of distinguishing between what is good and what is bad for the child and therefore incapable of protecting him; she alternates between times when she appears very childlike, in accordance with the idealised image of the mother, and times when she places G. in an adult role with seductive and subtly perverse traits. I can conclude that Mrs ... presents a serious personality disorder that at times affects the sphere of knowledge and ideation and at others the emotional and relational sphere, and that the hypothesis of a clinical 'borderline case' can be advanced. As matters stand, Mrs ... shows that she is not capable of managing the extremely complex family situation and G.'s particularly sensitive situation, still less of creating a sufficiently positive environment for him.” 25.     It was noted in a school report of 10 June 1997 that the elder boy was becoming increasingly agitated and that the first applicant's attitude to both her son and school staff had tended to be highly erratic: at times aggressive, at others attentive. According to the school, it had proved very difficult to establish a constructive dialogue with her. A report by the social worker the following day confirmed the elder boy's increasing difficulties. 26.     On 22 July 1997 the Youth Court ordered the elder son's placement in another home. The parents challenged that decision on 30 July 1997. On 8 August 1997 the Youth Court stipulated that the placement would last three months and was intended to provide an opportunity for the child's behaviour to be monitored. However, the boy manifested his dislike of that solution and ran away from the home, returning to his parents. Social services nonetheless insisted that he should remain in the home. 27.     It was stressed in a private medical report lodged at the time that the boy, who was in terror of the priest who ran the home, needed a peaceful environment rather than to be surrounded by other children whose past was just as tragic as his own. 28.     The younger child was transferred to another home in the meantime. 29.     On 8 September 1997, at the end of a meeting attended by, inter alia , social workers and specialists who had been supervising the first applicant and her children, the representatives of the relevant social-services department concluded that the children needed to be separated from their natural family and recommended their placement in a community, “Il Forteto”, which was organised as an agricultural cooperative. 30.     On 9 September 1997 the Florence Youth Court ordered the two children's placement at “Il Forteto”, pursuant to Article 333 of the Civil Code ( Condotta del genitore pregiudizievole ai figli – “parental behaviour harmful to the children”), suspended the father's and the mother's parental rights pursuant to Article 330 of the Civil Code ( Decadenza dalla potestà sui figli – “lapse of parental rights”), ordered that if the parents refused to comply, the decision was to be enforced with police assistance, and granted the parents the right to visit the younger son only, such visits to take place on the cooperative's premises and in the presence of members of its staff. The Youth Court observed, inter alia , that the parents had been uncooperative and had on one occasion taken the elder child from the home where he had previously been staying despite the protests of his carers. It also criticised the parents for having exposed the elder boy to a tragic situation – of which he had been the victim – over a lengthy period, without exercising the supervision which was expected of them as parents, or being alert to the alarm signals given by the child. Conversely, those signals had not escaped the attention of school staff, who had tried in vain to establish a dialogue with the family. Lastly, the Youth Court ordered social services to monitor the children's situation closely and to produce a proposal for the children's rehabilitation, based on what was observed. B.     Matters relating the “Il Forteto” community 31.     The case file reveals that at the end of the 1970s the cooperative was the subject matter of a criminal investigation into acts of bestiality and paedophilia allegedly committed there by three of its founder members. Two of them, L.R.F. and L.G., were arrested and later released, but nevertheless committed for trial. 32.     On 3 January 1985 the Florence Court of Appeal convicted L.R.F. and L.G. of, inter alia , the ill-treatment and sexual abuse of persons who had stayed in the home (they were acquitted on the other counts as there was insufficient evidence). The Court of Appeal considered it appropriate to examine the evidence against the accused in the light of the situation at “Il Forteto”: leaders at the home sought to sever relations between the children in their care and their natural parents, while homosexuality was rife. Relying, inter alia , on the evidence of witnesses and partial confessions by the accused, the Court of Appeal found the case proved, in particular, on the following counts: (i)     both L.R.F. and L.G. were guilty of ill-treating a handicapped 18-year-old girl who had stayed at the home for a few days by, inter alia , hitting her several times a day, insulting her in the presence of others, preventing her from communicating with the outside world and mocking her physical appearance. In addition, L.R.F. had spat in her face and, as an act of contempt, exposed himself to her. (ii)     L.R.F. was also found guilty of having sexually abused ( atti di libidine violenti ) two mentally handicapped males, on one occasion in the presence of a 13-year-old minor. 33.     L.R.F. was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and L.G. to ten months' imprisonment. They were nonetheless granted a stay of execution and the order banning them from holding public office was quashed. They also received an amnesty for an offence of wrongfully holding themselves out ( usurpazione di titolo ) as psychologists holding diplomas from the universities of Berne and Zürich. 34.     Their appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 8 May 1985. 35.     Both men remain on the staff working at the cooperative. In addition, one of them, L.R.F., was present during the aforementioned contact visit on 8 September 1997, which ended with the relevant social services department recommending to the Florence Youth Court that the first applicant's children be placed at “Il Forteto”. According to the most recent information available to the Court, L.R.F. is currently the president of that community. 36.     The case file and, in particular, one of the books published on “Il Forteto” ( Ritratti di famiglia , Florence, 1997), revealed that some of the people working in the community, or who have been staying there, come from problem families and have suffered violence at the hands of paedophiles. 37.     In support of her allegations, the first applicant has also produced various statements in writing, beginning with statements by three people who have given their identity and whose respective niece, sister and daughter stayed, for various reasons, at the community in question. The relevant extracts are set out below. 38.     Statement of the first witness: “... the little girl recognised me and came towards me; a man standing next to her, came towards us and told us to leave ... I went to 'Il Forteto' on another occasion in 1997 ... I tried a number of times but always received negative replies ...” 39.     Statement of the second witness: “... the girls who went to 'Il Forteto' were malnourished and demoralised. My sister was one of them. When she returned to my mother's house she didn't speak and couldn't express her ideas coherently; my mother and I had to feed her with a teaspoon for several months ...” 40.     Statement of the third witness: “... in May 1991, late in the evening in the presence of other members of the family, she was so frightened that she could not even manage to explain and kept repeating that she did not want to go back to 'Il Forteto'. That made us aware that terrible things are going on at 'Il Forteto'. She had to go back because they were blackmailing her ... She had in the past been hit by ... G. ... L. ... for refusing to participate in certain acts of violence which she did not want ... I am prepared to give evidence before the European Court.” 41.     The applicants have also produced two other witness statements in writing. Both are signed. 42.     The first is by a municipal councillor from a village in the region. She affirmed that the children's guardian, whom she already knew and to whom she had referred for information on the case, had advised her not to get involved. Furthermore, according to her statement, L.R.F. had invited her to visit the community after she had expressed doubts about it in public at a ceremony for the presentation of one of the books published on the community. Despite her repeatedly expressed wish to meet the children, she was consistently denied an opportunity to do so, various reasons being given. 43.     The second statement was made by two officially assigned experts working for the Florence Youth Court who had had a role in the case concerning the first applicant's children. According to their statement, the two experts – one a neurologist, the other a psychiatrist, and both directors of a family-therapy medical centre in Florence – had asked “Il Forteto” to allow trainees from the centre to work at the community or at least to visit it. On each occasion, their requests were turned down for reasons which the experts found “absurd”, such as, for example, the fact that the community was not a public institution. A student from the centre, attending a training course recognised by the Tuscany Region in 1996/97, had nonetheless managed to gain access to the community during his studies. During his visit he learnt from one of the leaders of the home that the families looking after the children were not necessarily the ones formally named in the court order. 44.     The applicants also referred to passages taken from one of the books published on the community ( Il Forteto , Florence, 1998). 45.     They quote, inter alia , the following passages relating to the vexed issue of the presence of certain adults at the home: “Therefore, they each decided to share a mutually enriching experience with the others which would assuage the affective deficiency which had been their driving force” (p. 94). “Thus each member found and continues to find, through this experience, a sense of belonging, cohesion and love which elsewhere, in his family of origin, was lacking” (p. 95) 46.     The applicants also quote the following passage, which refers to the authorities implicated in the criminal proceedings against some of the leaders of the community: “Many years have passed and the case has become clearer as the evidence of the machinations against them, which even today is kept in the villa, has been gathered. Even in that regard they display a Christian attitude which, frankly, I envy. Today, they could easily bring criminal proceedings or an action in damages against certain judicial officers, but do not do so ... At the time, the behaviour of the judicial authorities was schizophrenic. While making accusations against 'Il Forteto' via the Florence Public Prosecutor's Office, they continued to place children in the care of that structure through the Youth Court. S ... was put into R ... at precisely that time” (p.   31) C.     Suspension of contact between the first applicant and her children until the decision of the Florence Youth Court of 22 December 1998 47.     Within the community, the children were put into the care of Mr   G.C. and Mrs M.G., the couple designated in the court order of 9   September 1997. The applicants allege that by October 1997 the first applicant's elder son, despite being of school age, had still not started school. In fact, he was enrolled on 23 October 1997 and began lessons on 4   November 1997. 48.     On 10 and 14 October 1997 respectively the children's guardian and the public prosecutor applied to the Court for an order temporarily suspending contact with the younger boy, too. 49.     On 4 November 1997 the first applicant complained to Judge S. of the Youth Court that since that court's decision of 9 September 1997 she had been given no further opportunity to see her children. 50.     On the same day the psychology unit at the local health authority ( Unità sanitaria locale ) certified that the first applicant was in good psychological health. 51.     On 18 November 1997 the Youth Court noted that contact between the parents and the younger son had not yet begun. In view of the pending applications by the guardian and the public prosecutor, it ordered the appropriate child-neuropsychiatric centre to verify whether the time was ripe for a resumption of parental contact. 52.     On 25 November 1997 the first applicant made representations to the guardianship judge requesting execution of the Youth Court's decision concerning contact with the younger son. 53.     Other attempts by the first applicant to see her younger son by going directly to “Il Forteto” were unsuccessful. Subsequently, there was a deterioration in relations between the first applicant and certain leaders of the community responsible for her children. The latter lodged a complaint against her accusing her of having threatened and assaulted them verbally and physically. They alleged that, on at least one occasion, she had done so with the assistance of her former husband, whom, they said, she continued to see (a letter relating the incidents was sent on 7 January 1998 to the public prosecutor and to the Youth Court; it bore the signature of L.G.). 54.     On 3 December 1997 the first applicant requested the Youth Court to rescind its decision of 9 September 1997 because of a change of circumstances in the interim, she and her husband having just separated. She added that the realities of children's homes were often “ambiguous”. 55.     On 7 December 1997 the first applicant made a further complaint to the Youth Court. She said that “Il Forteto” had repeatedly refused to allow her to see her younger son and had disregarded the court's decisions. She requested it to obtain the information needed to establish whether the community was really defending the children's interests, not just private ones. 56.     On 15 December 1997 the elder child was questioned by the public prosecutor's office. According to the record, the interview took place in the presence of the foster parents, Mr G.C. and Mrs M.C., though one of them (probably Mrs M.C.) signed the record using L.G.'s surname (see paragraph   114 below). 57.     On 15 January 1998 the first applicant was served with notice to attend a hearing before Judge S. of the Youth Court. At that hearing, she informed the judge that certain leaders of “Il Forteto” had been prosecuted in the past for abuse and violence against people who had stayed in the community. 58.     Following the various steps taken by the first applicant, the Florence Youth Court noted in an order of 6 March 1998, firstly, that the initial examinations conducted by the child-neuropsychiatric centre showed that, while displaying open-mindedness, the younger child had at the same time denied his past and his parents. In particular, he had referred to his mother only on repeated prompting by staff from the centre. Observing that the child appeared to be in the process of coming to terms with a particularly difficult first phase in his past, the Youth Court considered it necessary for contact between the first applicant and her younger son to be preceded by preparatory sessions for both mother and child. The child was to be counselled by the social services department already responsible for his supervision, and the mother by the relevant psychology department. The court also ruled that contact could start once the preparatory work had been completed and the child had shown himself ready to resume relations with his mother. Lastly, it said that the contact was to be supervised by the social workers concerned, while the relevant authorities were to inform it when contact could begin and to advise on progress. 59.     On 30 March 1998 the first applicant informed the Belgian embassy in Italy of the danger presented by the community. She requested the intervention of the Belgian authorities. 60.     On 6 April 1998 the younger child was examined by a specialist. He was accompanied by Mr M.S. and Mrs M.G., as foster parents. 61.     Subsequently, the relevant social services department held preparatory sessions with the first applicant on 21 April, 19 May and 9 June 1998. The children attended several sessions with a neuropsychiatrist and were also required to take part in a number of logopaediatric sessions. 62.     There was a meeting of all the services concerned on 6 June 1998, at the end of which two initial contact visits between the first applicant and the younger child, each lasting an hour, were arranged for 8 and 14 July 1998. The visits were to take place in the presence of various specialists, including a social worker from the area in which “Il Forteto” was located, who was to accompany the child. The specialists were to observe the visits from behind a two-way mirror. 63.     The first applicant had requested that her lawyer also be allowed to attend the visits and informed the Youth Court of that request. However, it was turned down on the ground that the presence of undesignated persons was not envisaged and, in addition, the therapeutic nature of the arrangements made it necessary to restrict attendance to the specialists from public bodies. 64.     On 22 June 1998, however, the first applicant said that she was unwilling to see the younger child without his brother in view of the probable suffering that the elder child would endure on learning that only his younger brother was to be allowed to meet their mother. On 25 June 1998, Mrs C.C., a psychologist from social services, invited the first applicant to inform her whether she intended to stand by that decision and warned her that, unless she received a response, the contact visit would be cancelled. At that point, the first applicant changed her mind. 65.     On 29 June 1998 L.R.F., one of the two leaders of “Il Forteto” convicted in 1985, sent a letter to the deputy public prosecutor at the Florence Court of First Instance concerning the first applicant's children. In the letter, he stated, inter alia : “... we do not want the children to nurture absences which could develop into internal fantasies and consequently bring contact with their parents to an abrupt and definitive end, but we consider it very important to put off such contact to a more suitable moment and to give the children sufficient time to absorb the negative and guilt-ridden images which their parents evoke ...” 66.     On 2 July 1998 the deputy public prosecutor informed the Florence Youth Court that an investigation had been opened concerning the first applicant and her former husband, who were suspected of abusing the children. The deputy public prosecutor also drew the Youth Court's attention to the fact that the scheduled contact visits between the first applicant and the younger son, which he said he was aware of, could jeopardise the investigation as an expert examination due to continue throughout September 1998 was under way in order to determine whether that child presented symptoms of sexual abuse. He indicated that during recent interviews with a specialist, the child had begun to reveal matters of relevance to the accusation against his father, and added that he could not exclude a like accusation subsequently being made against the mother. 67.     On 6 July 1998 the Youth Court decided provisionally to suspend the contact visits scheduled for 8 and 14 July, pending the outcome of the new investigation. It considered that the investigation, in connection with which an expert psychological examination of the younger son had been ordered, might be hindered by the visits. 68.     On 14 July 1998 the elder son was questioned. Mr G.C. and Mrs   M.C. were once again present as the “foster parents”. 69.     In a note of 31 October 1998, the public prosecutor repeated that it was necessary for the children to be heard in connection with the investigation and desirable for them to be kept safe from any intimidating behaviour on the part of the parents that might undermine their recently recovered composure and compromise the results of future examinations. He stated in his memorandum that the children would be questioned as soon as possible regarding the matters disclosed in the psychologist's report, which matters would be communicated to the Youth Court once the confidentiality obligations that attached to the proceedings under way had been lifted. 70.     In addition, R.L., a neuropsychiatrist responsible for assessing the children, stated in a report of 11 November 1998 that a programme designed to help them renew contact with their parents was being prepared with the foster parents. D.     Action taken by the second applicant 71.     On 14 October 1997 the second applicant lodged an initial application for an order granting her parental rights over the children. 72.     On 4 March 1998 she requested permission to see the children at least twice weekly. 73.     On 15 May 1998 she made a further application to the Youth Court for permission to see the children. She said that she had not seen them since June 1997 and had learnt of the events that had resulted in the Youth Court placing the children in a community indirectly ( de relato ). 74.     At the end of the hearing on 12 June 1998, which the second applicant attended, the Florence Youth Court instructed the relevant child-psychology and neuropsychiatry departments to provide preparatory counselling to the children and their grandmother before contact began. The Youth Court noted that the latter had shown a real interest in renewing relations with the children and had indicated a willingness to follow the programme of counselling to be organised by the court-appointed services. 75.     Subsequently, the second applicant nonetheless appealed against that decision, her principal claim being to parental rights over the children. In the alternative, she asked to be allowed to see them at least twice weekly without prior counselling, since she was in any event prevented from attending such a course as she could not remain in Italy. In support of her application she contended, inter alia , that the application she had lodged in October 1997 had still not been examined and that she had looked after the elder boy in the past. 76.     On 6 July 1998 the Youth Court dismissed her appeal. It stated, in particular, that it failed to comprehend why the second applicant could not remain in Italy to attend the preparatory course arranged by the specialists, since she had asked to see the children at least twice weekly, which would inevitably mean her travelling to Italy on a regular basis. The Youth Court also considered that counselling was essential in view of the gravity of the events, which had seriously marked the children, and of the need to avoid jeopardising the delicate task of rehabilitation on which the specialists had embarked. Lastly, removing the children from Italy might hinder progress in the pending criminal investigation into offences that may have been committed by the parents. 77.     Meanwhile, on 19 June 1998 the second applicant had requested the Belgian consulate in Italy to have “Il Forteto” inspected by the Belgian diplomatic authorities. The Belgian diplomats did not note anything untoward during their visit. 78.     On 15 July 1998 the second applicant requested the Belgian authorities to seek the transfer of the children to Belgium under the Convention concerning the powers of authorities and the law applicable in respect of the protection of minors concluded at The Hague on 5 October 1961. E.     Decision of the Florence Youth Court of 22 December 1998 and the contact visits between the first applicant and her children 79.     On 22 December 1998 the Florence Youth Court examined the first applicant's application of 3 December 1997, the second applicant's application of 14 October 1997 and the guardian's application of 10 October 1997. It began by reconsidering its decision of 6 July 1998 and ordered that the counselling programme in preparation for contact between the two applicants and the children should begin immediately. The meetings were to start on 15 March 1999 at the latest. As regards the second applicant, the Youth Court considered that her recent move to Italy would facilitate the implementation of the preparatory programme. It nonetheless renewed its orders suspending parental rights and for the children's placement at “Il Forteto”, as the first applicant's domestic situation remained very difficult – despite her separation from the children's father – while the children had adapted very well to their foster home. Lastly, the Youth Court also envisaged a resumption of relations between the children and their father, who had shown a willingness to re-establish contact. Contact visits by the father could not, however, start before September 1999, owing to the uncertainty of his position while the criminal investigation was pending. 80.     On 8 January 1999 a judge of the Youth Court informed the Sesto Fiorentino Social Services Department that, in order to ensure continuity, it would be responsible for continuing the work of counselling for the visits ordered by the court on 22 December 1998. The court observed that the first applicant had requested that contact visits should commence. 81.     On 13 January 1999 the Sesto Fiorentino Social Services Department declared that it had no power to organise the counselling, as the first applicant had moved and the social worker hitherto assigned to her case had been transferred in the meantime. 82.     On 4 February 1999 the Figline Valdarno Social Services Department assigned a social worker to monitor the first applicant's progress. When giving evidence to the Youth Court on 8 February the social worker admitted that she was unfamiliar with the case, but said that she was conscious of the urgency of the situation and undertook to prepare the mother for contact with her children by no later than 15 March, the deadline set by the court. 83.     On 9 February 1999 a social worker from Vicchio (Mrs S.C.) and the child-neuropsychiatrist, Mr R.L., who were responsible for monitoring the progress of the first applicant's children and who had already prepared a programme of meetings with the children and the foster parents, informed the Youth Court that they had reservations as to the appropriateness of their being asked to counsel the children's father and grandmother with a view to contact. According to the social services department, there was a danger that the close proximity of the children would create tensions, added to which it did not know either the father or the grandmother. For those reasons, it suggested that they should receive preparatory counselling from their local social services. 84.     On 12 February 1999 the Head of the Figline Valdarno Social Services Department informed the Youth Court that it was encountering difficulties in obtaining all the documents relevant to the case. She proposed that the court should therefore convene a meeting of all the specialists and social workers involved. 85.     On 15 February 1999 the Youth Court replied, inter alia , to the Social Services Departments of Figline Valdarno and Vicchio; it informed them that the court proceedings had finished and that, accordingly, the administrative and organisational matters were to be dealt with by social services. It remarked, too, on the length of time that social services had taken since its decision and reminded them that they should be giving it their urgent attention. 86.     On 18 February 1999 the Figline Valdarno Social Services Department convened a meeting of all the social services departments involved. On 25 February 1999 the Vicchio Social Services Department informed the children's guardian that the programme of pre-contact counselling had begun in mid-January. 87.     On 2 March 1999 the elder boy sent a letter to the president of the Youth Court. Among other things he said that he had not seen his grandmother for four years and did not understand why she would want to see him again. As to his mother, he said that she had always sought to justify the conduct of his “social workers”, even though he had informed her of their conduct. It was only on arriving at “Il Forteto” that he had been able to comprehend, thanks to Mrs M. and Mr G., what he had been through and what it meant to have a father and mother. For those reasons, he did not want to see his mother at that stage. (He signed the letter using the surname of one of his official foster parents at “