By 
Filippo Turetta, Europe Team Researcher
Markus Spiske, via Unsplash, April 4th, 2020
On September 23, 2025, the ECtHR ruled that Italy failed to protect Valentina Scuderoni and her child from domestic violence, violating Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. The Court condemned delays and sexist stereotypes in the judiciary, stressing that protecting women from abuse is a binding human rights obligation.
On September 23rd, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Italy had violated Articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Scuderoni v Italy. The Court found Italy had lacked speed, diligence, and the seriousness required by the Convention and had therefore exposed the woman and her child to violence and continued danger.
Valentina Scuderoni, separated from her partner in 2017, continued to live with him and their son for the following nine months. In early 2018, she filed complaints denouncing threats (also in presence of the child), harassment, and psychological and physical abuse. Additionally, she claimed to be closely monitored by the former partner and prevented from having contact with her son on various occasions. Scuderoni even presented medical evidence of injury, which forced her to work from home; however, her appeals were not met with concern.
The ECtHR condemns the snail-paced turnaround of Italian intervention. It took two months for Scuderoni’s complaints to be formally registered, her urgent application regarding custody and use of the family home was left pending for nine months, and it took four years (and four different judges) before arriving at a sentence stating the acquittal of the former partner.
Sexist stereotypes impacted the case, downplaying the significance and gravity of Scuderoni’s complaints. Scuderoni’s request for a protection order was denied without any risk assessment. Additionally, her testimonies of verbal, psychological, and physical abuse were dismissed as mere “marital conflict”. By characterising violence as “malicious incidents”, the Italian Court ignored and minimised Scuderoni’s concerns and statements, questioning her credibility.
According to the ECtHR, Italy was guilty of not fulfilling its positive obligation to protect the woman from domestic violence committed by her former partner. The concerns by the ECtHR echoes those of GREVIO (independent body of the Council of Europe monitoring the Istanbul Convention), which call out the widespread judicial practice of downplaying abuses.
Sabrina Frasca, Head of Development Area at Differenza Donna, an association advocating for women’s rights and safety, stated in a radio interview that psychological violence continues to be minimised in Italian courtrooms. She says that, even though Italian law has the tools to deal with domestic abuse, stereotypes prevent women from enjoying their right to protection, with violence always dismissed as “family conflicts”. This case highlights the need for Italy to reform its legal system to rid it of social and judicial stereotypes that harm women. As the ECtHR reminds us, protecting women is not optional but a binding aspect of human rights law.
