European Court Condemns Italy Over Sexist Handling of Domestic Violence Allegations
- Human Rights Research Center
- 2 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Author: Christine Savino
July 9, 2026
HRRC condemns Italy’s failure to respond to domestic violence allegations with the seriousness required under human rights law. When prosecutors and courts rely on sexist assumptions, delay protective measures, or treat survivors’ accounts as less important than bureaucratic convenience, the justice system can cause further harm instead of guaranteeing protection.
![European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, where the judgment in Ubeda and Others v. Italy was delivered. [Image credit: Wikimedia Commons]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f05ed1_b387677eb04147a4a4b7b0eebcef57ec~mv2.jpeg/v1/fill/w_147,h_104,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,blur_2,enc_avif,quality_auto/f05ed1_b387677eb04147a4a4b7b0eebcef57ec~mv2.jpeg)
On July 2, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights condemned Italian authorities for their handling of domestic violence allegations brought by Audrey Ubeda, a French national living in Campania, Italy, and her two children.
In Ubeda and Others v. Italy, the Court unanimously held that Italian authorities violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment, and Article 8 ECHR, which protects private and family life, after they failed to properly address allegations of physical and psychological violence.
The case began in April 2021, when Ubeda filed a police complaint against her former cohabitant and the father of her children, alleging that he had been violent toward her and the children “both physically and psychologically.” In the complaint, Ubeda claimed that her husband had raped her several times and had once held a knife to her throat.
The following month, national authorities placed Ubeda and her children in a shelter, where they remained until July 2024.
The Court found that although the shelter placement may initially have prevented further escalation of the violence, it ultimately placed a heavier burden on Ubeda and the children than on the alleged perpetrator, who was not subjected to comparable restrictions.
The Court was especially critical of the prosecutor’s reasoning. In November 2021, the prosecutor sought to discontinue the criminal proceedings, dismissing the alleged knife-to-throat incident as a “bad joke” and reasoning that proving Ubeda’s lack of sexual consent was difficult because “it [was] normal for men to have to overcome a minimum level of resistance that every wom[a]n tend[ed] to display when she [was] tired from daily life and a man [made] a sexual advance.” The Court found that this reflected a sexist and stereotyped culture and subjected Ubeda to secondary victimization.
The judgment also criticized the Italian authorities’ failure to assess the family’s situation over time. The authorities did not adequately consider possible alternatives, such as assigning the family home to Ubeda and the children or authorizing them to move to France.
The Juvenile Court’s handling of custody issues also violated Article 8. The Juvenile Court took more than three years to issue a final decision withdrawing the father’s parental responsibility, during which time the family remained in a shelter, and the Court found that its standardized decisions failed to address the domestic violence allegations or the children’s statements.
The Court emphasized “the necessity of expressly assessing allegations of domestic violence, their credibility and substance and the compatibility of the conduct in question with custody and visitation rights.” It also noted that the children’s best interests were “entirely absent” from the decision withdrawing the father’s parental responsibility.
The Court ordered Italy to pay 60,000 Euros (70,000 USD) to Ubeda and her children, which Ubeda said she will donate to “an anti-violence center [to] help other women.”
Speaking to the Italian press following the judgment, Ubeda stated, “I have suffered discrimination and delays, but I have also met those who believed in me. And today that battle, won also thanks to the European Court, is a piece of truth that belongs to everyone. Justice always triumphs."
The ruling marks nearly 60 years since the 1967 conviction in the case of Franca Viola, who was also from Southern Italy. After Viola was kidnapped and raped in Sicily, her refusal to marry her attacker was an important rejection the Italian practice of matrimonio riparatore, or “rehabilitating marriage,” that was codified under the Italian Penal Code. The logic of the principle was that a woman who had been raped or sexually abused could be considered “rehabilitated” if she married her perpetrator, thereby restoring her social honor. Her refusal was legally vindicated when her attacker was convicted, making the case a landmark moment in challenging the notion that rape could be erased through marriage.
The Chamber judgment is not yet final, as either party may request referral to the Grand Chamber within three months.
Glossary
Allegations — Claims that someone has done something wrong or illegal, which have not yet been proven to be true.
Article 3 — Article 3 states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 8 — Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence.
Custody — Legal responsibility for where a child lives, who cares for the child, and who can make important decisions about the child’s upbringing.
Domestic violence — Domestic violence refers to physical, sexual, psychological, or economic violence within the family or domestic unit, or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the victim’s residence.
Gender-based violence against women — Gender-based violence against women means violence directed against a woman because she is a woman or violence that affects women disproportionately.
Perpetrator — A person who commits a crime or violent or harmful act.
Secondary victimization — Secondary victimization occurs when a victim suffers further harm not directly from the criminal act, but from the way institutions or other individuals deal with the victim.
Sexist — Based on prejudice, discrimination, or stereotypes about sex, especially discrimination against women.
Unanimously — In a way that is agreed or supported by everyone in a group. In this article, “the Court unanimously held” means all the judges agreed with the ruling.
References