Father denied contact claims violation of his right to respect for family life

Family Law|March 29th 2017

Viewing foreign language cases via online translation

I’m going to attempt something that I’ve never done before, and that I would certainly not recommend to anyone wishing to make a serious study of a case. This is really just an experiment, but may still be useful.

As the reader may know, some judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) are only available in one language. In particular, for our purposes on this side of the channel, some are only available in French. Obviously, this can mean that those of us who, like me, have a very limited understanding of French (my O-level was too long ago to remember) are denied access to judgments of interest.

For a serious study of a foreign-language case a proper expert translation should of course be obtained. However, that involves time and expense, so isn’t an option for many. How about using instead a free online translation service? Now, these services have been around for some years, and I have often tried them. In the early days they were completely hopeless, but they have improved of late, and I thought I would give it a go for a French-only ECHR report.

The service I used was the one that comes with the Chrome browser, which I assume is the Google Translate service. The translation comes up almost instantly and the results, initially at least, are impressive. However, further inspection shows up a number of issues. Still, I think the translation is good enough to get a pretty good idea of what the case was about, and the decision made by the court. You just have to be a bit careful as you read it, particularly as some of the errors are not immediately obvious.

So to the case. It is Endrizzi v Italy, a claim by a father that the failure of the courts to secure his contact with his son amounted to a breach of his right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Regular readers may recall that I have written here previously about similar cases, including one case in which the father’s claim succeeded and another in which it failed. I suspect that such cases will become more common, as a last resort for parents whose efforts to secure contact with their children through their national courts have failed.

Now, in the light of the translation issue I am going to be a bit sparing with my description of the case, to ensure that what I do say is as accurate as possible.

The facts of the case were that the parents were married, and lived together in northern Italy. They had one child, a son, born in January 2005. The marriage broke down soon thereafter, and the mother left the matrimonial home in July 2005, taking the child with her, and moved 1,000 kilometres south, to Sicily. In 2007 a legal separation was pronounced, and it was agreed that the parents would share custody of the child, that he would reside with the mother in Sicily and that the father would have extensive contact with him.

Now, this is where the translated details become a little unclear. In November 2007 the mother filed a complaint against the father, alleging that he had sexually assaulted the child. The allegation was investigated by the authorities, and no evidence of sexual abuse was found, so the complaint was dismissed. It seems that the mother then filed a similar complaint in 2008, and that for some reason that complaint was not dealt with until 2011. Whatever, it seems that the father was not allowed any significant contact with his son whilst these matters were under investigation. That investigation was completed and in 2011 and it appears that once again no evidence was found against the father, as the court decided that there was no longer any need to prohibit contact between the father and his son.

After this, the father’s difficulties in securing contact were largely due to the time that had elapsed since he last had meaningful contact, and the boy’s reluctance to see his father, possibly due to pressure from the mother. Various steps were taken by the courts to try to re-establish contact, including requesting social services to investigate the matter, but these efforts came to nothing. As a result, the father has not had proper contact with his son since 2007.

The father then made his application to the ECHR. The court found that the authorities had failed to exercise due diligence in the case, and that their actions were below what could reasonably have been expected of them. In particular the domestic courts did not take appropriate measures to establish effective contact. There had also been a three year delay in dealing with the second criminal complaint. In perhaps the most telling part of the ECHR judgment it said (according to the translation):

“The Court observed that the courts … tolerated, for about seven years, that the mother, by her behaviour, prevented the establishment of a genuine relationship between the applicant and the child.”

The judgment went on to say that the domestic court undertook “a series of automatic and stereotyped measures, such as successive requests for information and a delegation of the supervision of the family to social services”, which (it seems) did nothing to progress the matter and only consolidated the position of the mother, who was in breach of court orders.

In the light of these matters the ECHR held that the national authorities did not make adequate and sufficient efforts to enforce the applicant’s right of access and that there had therefore been a breach of Article 8. The father was awarded damages of 15,000 Euros, plus costs.

I hope that the above represents a reasonable summary of the case, although obviously this post cannot be relied upon as being 100 per cent accurate.

The full report of Endrizzi v Italy is available here, in French. If you use the Chrome browser an English translation may be found by right-clicking on the report and selecting ‘Translate to English’. Other methods of online translation are available.

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. Guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Share This Post...


  1. Paul says:

    How awful John. That fathers want to see their children and courts will not enforce these orders. Men have applied and been to court and deemed fit to be fathers. No doubt at great expence. If a man breached a restraining order or non mol you would enforce that. Its a disgrace. Thank god for the EU courts.
    My god. The man has been accused of sleeping with his daughter. A partner who is so bent on seperating him from his kids has made malicious and scandelous allegations which have been proven false. An you would not want to help this man rebuild his relationship as soon as possible. I think family law professionals are some how disconected from reality. It really is starting to sicken me speaking to you.

    • Cameron Paterson says:

      Morning Paul – I’m not sure you’ve read this case that closely. It concerned a son, not a daughter. And where did John say he was opposed to the father re-establishing contact?

  2. stitchedup2(Paul) says:

    Straying off subject. I’ll give you a brief update. It will please you to know John that Family law court successfully seperated me from my children yesterday.
    They were utterly ruthless to ensure my lack of repressentation did not pay off.
    I received a letter stating no live evidence would be accepted it would be dealt with on submissions.
    On the day however her soliciter changed his mind. He did not send me the paperwork for repressenting when he was ordered too by the court. I received it the day before in the bundle.
    #stiched up by professional games manship ? – ill let you decide.
    So i was given no time to prepare a line of questioning. I guess it is flattering that you ‘legal professionals’ actively fear the questioning of litigants in person. Personally I think its pathetic on the money you take home. You should conduct yourself as gentlemen.
    The solicitor asked me a selection of grossly out of context questions. I pointed this out. I was just told to answer the question.
    They desided that my evidence was suspect because i would not answer rediculously out of context questions. Even though my expartner had changed her story repeatedly she was deemed credible and i was not.
    I did not leave court feeling like I received a fair trial. I left court feeling like I have been utterly screwed over.
    I don’t accept any of the verdicts that were reached at all.
    I could not give evidence of parental alienation because I am not aloud to speak to my ex or the children for two years. So i knew it would be impossible to reach the standard of evidence required. A detective inspector could not do so with those constraints. I am totally aware. They set me up to fail by asking me to prove this.
    A CAFCAS officer tried to speak about parental alienation and why it had not taken place. I asked him if he received any training on this matter an he did not answer. If he reguarded himself as a expert withness. An he just shamelessly blagged it.
    I submitted a statement to the court outlining that he has lied to the court before and miss repressented the wishes of children. But the court would not admit this supplimentary evidence ??.
    There is no way i could have been successful in that court. Nobody in that court would be willing to accept defeat to a litigant in person. The courts have no way to assist contact if the mother will not comply. You are impotent in the face of young mothers.This is utterly shameful.
    History will not remember our family court system well.
    This is cause for great shame in our country.
    I have to accept now that I will never receive a fair trial in the UK family court. The state has destroyed my right to fatherhood.
    I truly don’t know how you people sleep at night doing this to people on a weekly basis for profit.
    You will face judgement too one day.
    Carry on burning the new witchs.

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy