CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sB3C68C7C { color:#eb613d } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)53 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Scozzari and Giunta against Italy   (Applications Nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, judgment of 13 July 2000, Grand Chamber)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the placement in 1997 and maintenance of the applicant's children taken into state care in the “Forteto” community, and the authorities' failure to preserve the possibility of rebuilding family bonds through regular visits (violation of Article   8) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Italy's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)53   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Scozzari and Giunta against Italy     Introductory case summary   The case concerns two violations of Article 8 due to firstly, the placement in 1997 and maintenance of two minor children taken into state care in a community called “ Il Forteto ”, and secondly, to the authorities' failure in their duty to preserve the possibility of rebuilding family bonds between the children and their mother through regular visits.   The European Court considered that the suspension of the parents' authority over their children and the provisional removal of the children from the family had been justified because they had been subjected to repeated acts of violence and the elder had been sexually abused by a family friend. In finding these violations, the European Court took into consideration the following points in particular:     1) As to the placement of the children in Il Forteto :   - two of the persons responsible for running the community had been convicted in 1985 of ill-treating and sexually abusing handicapped persons placed in the community's care, which gave rise to serious misgivings and called for particular prudence and vigilance;   - these above-mentioned persons continued to play a very active role in supervising children. Some Il Forteto workers, including one of those persons, had contributed significantly to delaying or setting obstacles to the enforcement of the decisions of the Florence Children's Court authorising contacts between the first applicant and her children. In general, the workers of Il Forteto exercised a growing influence over the children, distancing them from their mother;   - there was uncertainty concerning who exactly was in charge of the children, as various people presented themselves as foster-parents;   - no term was set for the placement and no valid justification was given for that.   However, the European Court was not called upon to rule on Il Forteto as such or on the general quality of care given to the children confided to it. Nor was it required to determine whether the confidence vested in the community by many institutions was justified or not.     2) As to the meetings between mother and children:   - the meetings organised between 1997 and 2000, which were sporadic given their number and frequency (two in virtually three years), were essentially pointless seen in the light of the principles flowing from Article 8 which require effective and consistent implementation of court decisions favouring parent/child meetings aimed at rebuilding relationships with a view to possible family reunion;   - the excessive autonomy exercised by the social services in carrying out the Youth Court's decisions as well as their negative attitude towards the applicant without any convincing objective basis contributed to deepening the rift between her and the children;   - the Children's Court condoned the social services' action without assessing it in depth;   The circumstances resulted in the frustration and misdirection of the court's decisions authorising contact between mother and children, with the attendant risk of bringing about irreversible separation. From a procedural point of view, it may be noted that the first applicant, who has double Italian and Belgian nationality, acted before the European Court on her own behalf and on the children's. In 1999, the Belgian government intervened in the proceedings and submitted observations.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 200   000   000 ITL 18 485 000 ITL 218   485   000 ITL Paid on 07/02/2001   b) Individual measures   1) As to placement in the Il Forteto community :   After the European Court delivered its judgment, the following developments took place. In July 2001 the Florence Children's Court entrusted the custody of the children to a foster-couple. This couple lived within the Il Forteto community (the legal status of which is an agricultural co-operative) and exercised individual responsibility and “exclusive and direct” custody in respect of the children. The Italian authorities emphasised the fact that the former community leaders who had been convicted of offences played no further role in bringing up the children and exercised no activity in contact with them. The Italian authorities undertook to ensure strict respect of these requirements.   In 2001 the Florence Children's Court also remedied the absence of a time-limit for the placement by issuing a three-year placement order, subsequently extended to September 2005. This was appealed in February 2006. While awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Florence Children's Court issued a further extension of the placement of the younger child, the elder having reached the age of majority. In a decision of 26/03/2008, the Court of Appeal affirmed the abovementioned placement until September 2009. The younger child, who will attain his majority in 2012, is still in care with the above-mentioned married couple, who are members of Il Forteto .   The Deputies agreed to close the aspect of the case concerning the placement of the minor applicant, in view of the efforts made and assurances given by the Italian authorities, of the circumstances, currently different from those described by the European Court in its judgment of 13 July 2000, of the development of the child in the foster family and of the time which has elapsed since the initial placement.     2) As to the meetings between the applicant and her children :   Following the European Court's judgment, the social service officials criticised in the case were replaced. In addition , new Children's Court judges were assigned to the case. The Florence Children's Court is closely following the development of the mother/children relationship pursuant to Italy's obligations under the judgment.   During the period of nearly eight years in which the Committee of Minister supervised the execution of this judgment, the question of meetings between the mother and her children was central to their concerns. During those years, the Committee closely followed the developments, which are described in detail in the public agenda notes of the 1020th DH meeting (March 2008) ( Committee of Ministers – 1020th meeting (DH), 4-6 March 2008 – Annotated Agenda – Decisions – Section 4.1 – Public information version –http://www.coe.int/t/cm/humanRights_en.asp ).   In that context, the Committee welcomed the co-operation between the Belgian and Italian delegations concerning the contacts between the mother and her minor son and encouraged them to continue in their co-operation with a view to assessing the circumstances permitting the conclusion that the resumption of contacts has been made possible by the Italian authorities.   The Deputies noted the new efforts made by the Italian authorities with respect to the question of the resumption of contacts between the applicant and her minor son, and noted the Italian authorities' undertaking to pursue their commitment in that respect. Moreover, they welcomed the on-going co-operation between the Belgian and Italian authorities to establish an appropriate framework for the progressive resumption of contacts between the applicant and her minor son on the basis of the relevant decisions of the Italian courts, and encouraged them strongly to continue in that direction on a bilateral basis. In the light of these developments, the Deputies also decided to close this aspect of the case. Moreover, in the abovementioned decision of March 2008, the Florence Court of Appeal authorised the continuation of meetings, with a presence as discrete as possible of the social services. These services were also given the task of determining how the meetings could progressively take place in a more flexible way.     II.   General measures     1) Strengthening the supervision of care measures :   The supervision of care measures has been strengthened. In particular, a new law, (Law 149/2003) entered into effect, which regulates adoption and state guardianship. Under this law, placement orders must indicate how the person given responsibility over a child is to exercise that responsibility, and how the parents and other members of the nuclear family are to maintain their links with the minor child. Placement orders must also lay down the duration of the placement, which must be fixed in regard of all measures aimed at reintegration with the family of origin. The social service department responsible for the placement must inform the judge of any significant event and must facilitate the minor's relations with, and return to its family of origin. A 2003 Opinion by the Supreme Judicial Board (CSM) noted that the reinforced supervisory system established by Law 149/2003 is generally satisfactory.   The CSM also requires that where children are placed with carers who have criminal records, youth magistrates must :   a) exercise special attentiveness and vigilance, b) duly justify their decisions on this point, c) examine carefully the advisability of making such placements continuous, and d) take due account of the legitimate concerns of those concerned.       2) Other measures taken :   Moreover, seminars have been organised to raise the awareness of youth magistrates and social workers of the requirements of the Convention as interpreted by the Strasbourg case-law in respect of family law. The European Court's judgment has been translated and published in Revista Internazionale degli Diritti del'Uomo , No. 3/2000, pp. 1015 - 1046.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Italy has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 June 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies