Santilli vs. Italia
[modificare]
- > Jurisprudență CEDO
- > Jurisprudența CEDO privind minorii
- > Index de Sentințe CEDO privitoare la drepturile părinților necăsătoriți
Sumar[modificare]
Curtea a decis cu unanimitate de voturi că în acest caz a fost vorba de o violare a articoulului 6-1 datorită duratei excesiv de mari a procedurilor judecătorești (aproximativ 6 ani și 9 luni). Curtea a decis o compensație bănească conform art. 50 din Convenție.
Descrierea cazului[modificare]
Nicolò Santilli v. Italy (application no. 51930/10)* Publication: A 194 D Title: Santilli v. Italy Application No: 11634/85 Respondent: Italy Referred by: Commission Date of reference by Commission: 16-02-1990 Date of reference by State: Date of Judgment: 19-02-1991 Articles: 6-1 P1-1 50 Conclusion: Violation of article 6-1 Not necessary to examine article P1-1 Compensation under article 50 awarded Keywords: PROMPT TRIAL / PROPERTY / [CIVIL PROCEEDINGS]
The applicant, Nicolò Santilli, is an Italian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Urbino (Italy). The case mainly concerned his inability to exercise access rights to his son. At an unknown date, Mr Santilli left A.B., with whom he had a son, Y. His ex-partner was awarded custody in 2006 and Mr Santilli obtained a right of access. However, the social services established that the visits ordered by the courts had been made impossible by the opposition of A.B. Between 2006 and 2009, Mr Santilli thus applied on several occasions to the courts, which ordered A.B. to allow him to exercise his access rights. In October 2011, faced with A.B.’s constant opposition and the child’s worsening psychological situation, the Italian courts ordered the social services to draw up a timetable of visits. Visits then took place until December 2011, when Mr Santilli decided to suspend them in the interest of Y, who was refusing to see his father. In March 2012 the Italian courts ordered both parents to comply with their directions and authorised Mr Santilli to see his son once a week. In August 2012, the social services informed the courts that they had lost contact with Mr Santilli. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Santilli complained that, in spite of a number of court decisions providing for his right of access, he had not been able to exercise that right fully since 2006. He further alleged a violation notably of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
Decizia Curții[modificare]
Curtea a decis cu unanimitate de voturi că în acest caz a fost vorba de o violare a articoulului 6-1 datorită duratei excesiv de mari a procedurilor judecătorești (aproximativ 6 ani și 9 luni). Curtea a decis o compensație bănească conform art. 50 din Convenție.
- Violation of Article 8 (!?)
- Nu s-a remacat o violare a art. 13
- Compensație de 10,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costuri judiciare)
Citate[modificare]
- N/A