CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s31BC87C7 { width:96.4%; border-collapse:collapse } .s4B6BAF08 { width:8.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s38C4E992 { width:19.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5F419D3 { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s335188E4 { width:30.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE5A1B6F2 { width:8.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEE73AB42 { width:19.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9AC405FA { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s653145A1 { width:30.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 16 December 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 27379/24 L.Z. and D.Z. against Italy lodged on 9 September 2024 communicated on 25 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the interruption of relations between the mother (the first applicant) and her child (the second applicant), who had been placed in pre-adoption foster care following his abandonment. The Juvenile Court initiated proceedings for the adoption of the second applicant in November 2020 (sixteen days after his birth), appointed a guardian for the second applicant and placed him in pre-adoption foster care. Such proceedings were annulled by the Court of Appeal, in July 2021, at the request of the first applicant. In August 2021, the Juvenile Court initiated new proceedings for the adoption of the second applicant, maintaining his pre-adoptive placement with the couple already identified and the guardian. Following an expert assessment to determine the mother’s parental capabilities, in December 2022 the Juvenile Court ordered the return of the second applicant to the first applicant within four months, with the assistance of social services, the family counselling centre, and the child neuropsychiatry service. The latter were entrusted with the task of facilitating the reunification process between the first and second applicants, which included holding contact visits. In November 2023, the Juvenile Court, following several requests from the first applicant, took note of the fact that the December 2022 measure had not been enforced. The Juvenile Court also criticised the conduct of the foster family, the guardian of the child, and the experts it had appointed to assist with facilitating the reunification process. It therefore appointed three new experts to identify strategies and solutions with a view to the reunification. Following a first assessment by the three experts, the Juvenile Court requested that they perform a fresh assessment of the first applicant’s parental capabilities. The applicants allege that contact visits had not been held, the measure providing for their reunification had not been carried out, and the adoption proceedings were still pending. They also allege the lack of effective remedies for the restoration of family ties in a reasonable time to avoid a de facto determination of the matter. The applicants raise complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the alleged failure by the competent authorities, from December 2022, to reunite the applicants in a timely manner, including by determining contact rights between them, as established by the Juvenile Court? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   2.     Were the measures taken by the Italian authorities consistent with the ultimate aim of reuniting the natural parent and the child? Were adequate steps taken to facilitate family reunification as soon as reasonably feasible (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, §§ 206-08 and 220, 10 September 2019, D.M. and N. v. Italy , no.   60083/19, 20   January 2022, §§73 and 76, A.I. v. Italy , no. 70896/17, §§ 86-89,   92 and 94, 1 April 2021)? Did the domestic authorities perform a genuine balancing exercise between the interests at stake, taking into account, in particular, the following elements:   (a)     In 2022 the Juvenile Court had found, on the basis of the experts’ conclusions, that the first applicant had adequate parental capabilities;   (b)     Despite the Juvenile Court’s order of December 2022, social services, the family counselling centre, and the child neuropsychiatry service did not hold any contact meetings between December 2022 and   November 2023 ( A and Others v. Italy , no. 17791/22, § 103, 7   September   2023, Terna   v. Italy, no 21052/18, §§ 67 and72, 14 January 2021);   (c)     In November 2023 the three experts appointed by the Juvenile Court decided not to allow any contact meeting between the two applicants ( Terna , cited above, §§ 67 and72).   3.     Was the decision-making process leading to the decision of the Juvenile Court fair and did it respect the interests protected by Article 8 of the Convention, taking into account that there is a risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter (see, among others, A and Others v. Italy , cited above, § 95, T.C. v. Italy , no. 54032/18, §   58, 19   May   2022, Endrizzi v. Italy , no 71660/14, § 48, 23 March 2017, et Improta v. Italy , no 66396/14, § 45, 4 May 2017), having regard, in particular, to the fact that:   (a)     The adoption proceedings concerning the second applicant are still ongoing after four years;   (b)     Although the first applicant stated that the three experts appointed in November 2023 displayed prejudice against her, the same experts are still tasked with the assessment of the first applicant’s parental capabilities;   (c)     Although the Juvenile Court held that the foster family and the guardian had been uncooperative, the second applicant is still placed with his foster family.   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, considering that the Juvenile Court has not issued a final decision since 2021?   5.     The parties are invited to clarify the link in Italian law between temporary (or urgent) measures and final measures in the context of proceedings relating to family relations and children’s rights. In particular:   - are there provisions that prevent family matters from being settled by the Courts on a temporary basis? - is there a remedy against an interim measure? - are there provisions to request the adoption of final measures? - are there provisions aimed at ensuring the binding force of judicial decisions in so far as social services, family counselling centre and court-appointed experts are concerned? Do the latter have the possibility of not enforcing these decisions? - are there provisions allowing for the enforcement of measures and decisions that have not been enforced? - how have recent legislative reforms addressed these issues?   The parties are invited to provide, if applicable, examples of relevant case ‑ law.     APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. L.Z. 1979 Italian Modica 2. D.Z. 2020 Italian With the foster family