Page 162 - Petelin, Ana, et al. 2019. Eds. Zdravje otrok in mladostnikov / Health of Children and Adolescents. Proceedings. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 162
avje otrok in mladostnikov | health of children and adolescents 160 Bondavalli. Furthermore, the ECHR declared that the Italian courts had not
taken adequate measures to favour the conditions for Mr. Bondavalli to ful-
ly exercise his right of contact with his son. Subsequently, the best interest of
the child was not granted either. The ECHR sentenced that Italy was to pay Mr
Bondavalli 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 15,000 euros
with respect to costs and expenses.
The third example refers to the case Giorgioni v. Italy (ECHR Application
nr. 43299/12) in which the ECHR recognized that there had been a violation of
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for
family life). In particular, the ECHR noted that the Italian courts had not tak-
en appropriate measures to ensure that Mr. Giorgioni could exercise fully his
contact rights with regards to his son despite a conflictual situation with the
child’s mother.
In 2008, the domestic court in Italy granted the parents joint custody of
the child, urged them to cooperate with each other, and decided that the child
should live with his mother. In April 2010, the court took notice of the moth-
er’s lack of cooperation with the social services and granted the father visiting
and staying contact rights albeit under supervision of the social services. De-
spite the court’s orders, the woman continued to oppose any meeting between
the father and their child in her absence. As a result, in November 2010 the ap-
plicant informed the social services he no longer wanted any meetings.
In this case, the ECHR sentenced that the lack of cooperation between
the parents did not exempt the Italian authorities from pursuing everything in
their power to secure that a family bond was kept alive. The domestic courts
failed in taking adequate measures at the onset of the parents’ separation to en-
able optimal contact arrangements to be put in place. On this basis, the ECHR
concluded that there had been a violation of the respect for family life. It held
that the violation was itself sufficient for any non-pecuniary damage sustained,
and that Italy was to pay Mr. Giorgioni 10,000 euros with respect to costs and
expenses.
A similar case is that of Strumia v. Italy (ECHR Application nr. 53377/13),
showing Mr. Sturmia’s inability to exercise his contact rights with his child un-
der the conditions set by the domestic courts. In 2007, the applicant’s wife left
the marital home with the couple’s daughter (3 years old at that time). In May
2007 the women applied to the Italian Youth Court alleging ill-treatment by
her father and demanding that urgent measures be taken. Mr. Sturmia, who
had been unable to exercise his contact rights, asked that visits be arranged in a
protected setting. Even though the court in Italy decided for meetings between
the applicant and his daughter in a protected setting, the order was never com-
plied due to the objections of the mother.
On November 2010, the domestic court placed the child in the care of so-
cial services with her mother’s home as main residence. Only four years later
(2014) it ordered social services to take all the necessary measures to secure the
taken adequate measures to favour the conditions for Mr. Bondavalli to ful-
ly exercise his right of contact with his son. Subsequently, the best interest of
the child was not granted either. The ECHR sentenced that Italy was to pay Mr
Bondavalli 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 15,000 euros
with respect to costs and expenses.
The third example refers to the case Giorgioni v. Italy (ECHR Application
nr. 43299/12) in which the ECHR recognized that there had been a violation of
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for
family life). In particular, the ECHR noted that the Italian courts had not tak-
en appropriate measures to ensure that Mr. Giorgioni could exercise fully his
contact rights with regards to his son despite a conflictual situation with the
child’s mother.
In 2008, the domestic court in Italy granted the parents joint custody of
the child, urged them to cooperate with each other, and decided that the child
should live with his mother. In April 2010, the court took notice of the moth-
er’s lack of cooperation with the social services and granted the father visiting
and staying contact rights albeit under supervision of the social services. De-
spite the court’s orders, the woman continued to oppose any meeting between
the father and their child in her absence. As a result, in November 2010 the ap-
plicant informed the social services he no longer wanted any meetings.
In this case, the ECHR sentenced that the lack of cooperation between
the parents did not exempt the Italian authorities from pursuing everything in
their power to secure that a family bond was kept alive. The domestic courts
failed in taking adequate measures at the onset of the parents’ separation to en-
able optimal contact arrangements to be put in place. On this basis, the ECHR
concluded that there had been a violation of the respect for family life. It held
that the violation was itself sufficient for any non-pecuniary damage sustained,
and that Italy was to pay Mr. Giorgioni 10,000 euros with respect to costs and
expenses.
A similar case is that of Strumia v. Italy (ECHR Application nr. 53377/13),
showing Mr. Sturmia’s inability to exercise his contact rights with his child un-
der the conditions set by the domestic courts. In 2007, the applicant’s wife left
the marital home with the couple’s daughter (3 years old at that time). In May
2007 the women applied to the Italian Youth Court alleging ill-treatment by
her father and demanding that urgent measures be taken. Mr. Sturmia, who
had been unable to exercise his contact rights, asked that visits be arranged in a
protected setting. Even though the court in Italy decided for meetings between
the applicant and his daughter in a protected setting, the order was never com-
plied due to the objections of the mother.
On November 2010, the domestic court placed the child in the care of so-
cial services with her mother’s home as main residence. Only four years later
(2014) it ordered social services to take all the necessary measures to secure the
