Bronda v. Italy (40/1997/824/1030) 9 June 1998: – failure to return a child to its original family
Italy – failure to return a child to its original family contrary to decision of a court of appeal
I. ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
Existence of family ties between applicants and their granddaughter coming within notion of family life within meaning of Article 8: not disputed.
A. Whether there had been an interference
Recapitulation of Court’s case-law.
Existence of interference in applicants’ right to respect for their family life: not contested.
B. Whether interference was justified
Recapitulation of Court’s case-law.
1. "In accordance with law"
Wording of relevant provisions (Article 333 of Civil Code and Article 373 of Code of Civil Procedure) was rather general and national authorities had a wide measure of discretion, in particular to determine what measures were necessary for protection of child – impossible in that sphere to lay down legal rules with total precision – safeguards against arbitrary interference were provided by fact that way in which norms were applied was subject to review by courts – measures taken in case before it had been in accordance with law – parties and Commission agreed on that point.2. "Legitimate aim"
Provisions concerned had been applied in order to protect child – no reason to consider that domestic courts had relied on them with aim of estranging S. from her original family – judges had been guided by what was in S.’s interest and was necessary to ensure her mental development.Interference pursued a legitimate aim.
3. "Necessary in a democratic society"
Recapitulation of Court’s case-law.Court satisfied that judicial decisions to leave S. with foster parents had been based on reasons that were not only relevant but also sufficient – domestic courts had relied throughout on thorough assessments of psychiatric experts and on reports prepared by social workers after each meeting between S. and her natural family.
Court attached special weight to overriding interest of child which, in case before Court, outweighed her grandparents’ interest.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).