This judgment in the case of *Ubeda and Others v. Italy* (application no. 9993\/24) concerns the failure of Italian authorities to protect a mother and her two minor children from domestic and sexual violence. The Court found that the state failed to conduct a prompt and effective criminal investigation, which was marred by sexist stereotypes and significant procedural delays. Simultaneously, the Juvenile Court\u2019s handling of custody proceedings was deemed characterized by inertia and a failure to address the victims’ safety, resulting in a three-year, disproportionate placement in a restrictive shelter. The Court concluded that these systemic failures violated the applicants’ rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. This decision is **** as it highlights the critical need for a holistic, gender-sensitive approach by both criminal and civil judicial bodies in cases of domestic violence.<\/p>\n
### Structure and Provisions
\nThe judgment is structured into three main legal sections:
\n1. **Admissibility:** The Court rejected the Government\u2019s objection regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, ruling that the applicants were not required to wait indefinitely for the conclusion of proceedings that were clearly ineffective.
\n2. **Articles 3 and 8 (Criminal Investigation):** The Court analyzed the state\u2019s positive procedural obligations. It found that the public prosecutor’s initial request to discontinue the case\u2014which dismissed violent acts as “bad jokes” or “disciplinary measures”\u2014reflected a dangerous, stereotyped culture. The Court emphasized that the lack of progress in the criminal trial for over three years constituted a failure to provide a proportionate response to the alleged violence.
\n3. **Article 8 (Juvenile Court Inaction):** The Court examined the civil proceedings, noting that the Juvenile Court failed to rule on custody, maintenance, and relocation requests for years. It criticized the use of “pre-printed templates” that ignored the specific allegations of violence, thereby causing secondary victimization and failing to protect the children’s best interests.<\/p>\n
### Key Provisions for Legal Use
\nFor practitioners and observers, the following points are the most significant:
\n* **The “Holistic” Requirement:** The Court explicitly stated that protection against domestic violence must be ensured not only in criminal courts but also in civil and juvenile proceedings. Judges are under a duty to assess the credibility of violence allegations and their impact on parental capacity.
\n* **Secondary Victimization:** The judgment reinforces that judicial decisions based on gender stereotypes or the failure to acknowledge domestic violence in custody disputes constitute a breach of the Convention. It validates the concerns raised by GREVIO regarding the “backfiring” of the justice system against protective mothers.
\n* **Proportionality of Protective Measures:** The Court established that placing victims in a shelter for years without ongoing assessment of the necessity or proportionality of that measure\u2014especially when it restricts the victims’ freedom more than the perpetrator’s\u2014is a violation of Article 8.
\n* **Procedural Diligence:** The judgment clarifies that the “effectiveness” of an investigation is linked to its speed. Prolonged, unjustified adjournments in criminal and civil proceedings are sufficient to establish a violation of the state’s positive obligations.
\n* **Pre-printed Templates:** The Court expressed serious concern over the use of standardized, pre-printed judicial templates in complex domestic violence cases, noting that such practices prevent the necessary individualized assessment of the victims’ specific circumstances and safety needs.<\/p>\n