You are on page 1of 2

issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 068 (2017)


Judgments and decisions of 23 February 2017

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two judgments1 and eight
one Chamber judgment is summarised below;
one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and
the eight decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgment summarised below is available only in French.

DAlconzo v. Italy (application no. 64297/12)

The applicant, Giuseppe DAlconzo, is an Italian national who was born in 1964 and lives in
Monterosi (Italy). The case concerned the applicants inability to exercise his right of contact with his
two children.
In January 2007 Mr DAlconzos former girlfriend left Italy for the United States with their two
children. Mr DAlconzo 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
childrens 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 DAlconzo was granted contact rights.
In March 2011 Mr DAlconzo 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 DAlconzo did not see his children. At
the public prosecutors request the District Court ordered the childrens 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 mothers care. In September 2011 she
brought a fresh complaint against Mr DAlconzo alleging that he had indecently assaulted the other
child. Mr DAlconzo was acquitted of the indecent assault charge in May 2014.
In October 2011 the District Court ordered that meetings be arranged between Mr DAlconzo 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 childrens refusal and their mothers 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 mothers 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 DAlconzo

1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgments delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here:
2 Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
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 DAlconzo, he last saw his children in April 2016 and June 2016 respectively.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on
Human Rights, Mr DAlconzo 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
Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 7,000 (costs and expenses)

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on To receive
the Courts press releases, please subscribe here: or follow us on Twitter
Press contacts | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
George Stafford (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 71)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.