4.  The applicant was born in 1997. 5.  Following the death of her grandmother in 2010 the applicant, who was a minor at the time, began to show signs of distress. Her parents sought the opinion of a psychiatrist, who emphasised that their daughter was suffering from emotional instability, alternating between periods of anger and periods of agitation. 6.  On 19 April 2013 the applicant went to a party where there were drugs and alcohol. The police arrived, seized the drugs and alcohol and checked the identity of the minors who were present. 7.  On 23 April 2013 the prefect of Rome informed the public prosecutor at the Rome Youth Court (“the Youth Court”) of the police operation carried out on 19 April 2013 and of the presence of V.C., a minor, at the scene. A criminal investigation was opened and the public prosecutor at the Youth Court was informed. 8.  On 31 May 2013 the public prosecutor heard evidence from V.C.’s parents. They stated that their daughter had been having difficulties and that they were worried about her, saying that she was taking drugs and stealing money at home. They also told the prosecutor that, according to the psychiatrist who was treating the applicant, she suffered from a bipolar disorder and an attention deficit disorder caused by drug use and also showed signs of a borderline and anti-social personality. 9.  Subsequently, in June 2013, V.C.’s parents informed the prosecutor that they had discovered through their daughter’s Facebook page that she had been approached by a photographer to pose for pornographic photographs. The Government maintained that the parents had told the prosecutor on that occasion that their daughter did not want to be placed in a specialist institution. 10.  On 5 June 2013 the public prosecutor heard evidence from the applicant, who stated that she had started to take drugs when she was twelve but had since stopped. The applicant stated that she did not wish to be placed in a specialist institution or in a foster family. 11.  On 25 June 2013 the applicant’s mother informed the public prosecutor by telephone that the situation had not improved and that the applicant had been approached to pose for pornographic photographs. 12.  On 2 July 2013 the public prosecutor informed the Youth Court that it was clear from the statements made by the parents and the applicant, who had admitted stopping school and using drugs, and from the psychiatrist’s diagnosis, that V.C. was in danger as she was no longer attending school and there was a risk that she might be caught up in a child prostitution ring, given that she had been approached to pose for photographs. The public prosecutor therefore requested the Youth Court to institute urgent proceedings under Article 25 of Royal Decree no. 1404 of 1934 and to have the minor placed in a specialist institution and in the care of the social services. 13.  On 24 July 2013 the Youth Court appointed a judge (giudice onorario) to hear evidence from the applicant, her parents and the social services, in order to learn more about her environment and take the appropriate measures to protect her. 14.  On 14 October 2013, that is, almost three months later, the Youth Court gave the social services notice to appear before it. However, they did not appear. 15.  The Youth Court gave notice to the applicant’s parents to appear before it on 21 October 2013. The parents gave evidence without the social services being present and stated that their daughter did not want to give evidence. 16.  On 24 October 2013 the public prosecutor requested the judge to place the child in the care of the social services and in a specialist institution. 17.  On 9 December 2013 the Youth Court, after hearing evidence from the parents and adding to the file the conversations which the applicant, who had refused to give evidence, had had on Facebook, and taking into account the fact that the social services had not attended the hearing, decided that it was necessary to place the child in the care of the social services. The court ordered her placement in a specialist institution for an initial twelve-month period so that she could follow a specific programme designed to help her to amend her behaviour, which the court described as erratic, and thus to resume a normal life. 18.  On 11 December 2013 the social services received a copy of the Youth Court’s decision. 19.  On 17 December 2013 a first meeting was held between the social services and the applicant’s parents. During the meeting the parents told the social services that there was a risk that their daughter might be caught up in a prostitution ring. They informed the social services that a criminal investigation was in progress. 20.  On 18 December 2013 the social services contacted the psychiatrist who was treating the applicant and later met the applicant. 21.  On 19 December 2013 the public prosecutor at the District Court informed the public prosecutor at the Youth Court that a criminal investigation was in progress concerning two individuals for exploitation of the applicant for prostitution. The applicant had given evidence on 4 and 9 December 2013 (see paragraph 48 below).
The public prosecutor stressed that the arrest of the two suspects was imminent, and requested the prosecutor at the Youth Court to inform him of the measures taken to implement the Youth Court’s decision of 9 December 2013 (see paragraph 17 above), given that the applicant was due to give evidence at the ad hoc hearing (incidente probatorio) (see paragraph 51 below). 22.  On 20 December 2013 the applicant reiterated that she did not wish to be placed in a specialist institution. 23.  However, in January 2014 she consented to such placement. 24.  On 30 January 2014 the social services contacted the regional drug addiction agency for advice on how to help the applicant withdraw from drugs. 25.  During the night of 30 January 2014 V.C. was the victim of a rape (violenza sessuale) committed by two individuals (see paragraph 54 below). On 31 January the applicant went to hospital with a police officer and her mother in order to be examined. 26.  On 6 February 2014 the social services told the Youth Court that they had had several meetings with V.C.’s parents and with the psychologist and psychiatrist whom she was seeing. They also informed the court that the girl had agreed to be placed in a specialist facility with a view to drug rehabilitation treatment. 27.  On 7 February 2014 the social services were informed of the assault on the applicant. 28.  On 19 February 2014 the President of the Youth Court made an urgent request to the social services to inform her of the measures taken to assist the applicant. She stressed that, in view of the applicant’s age, it was still possible for her to change her behaviour and that a programme should be put in place to protect her from the risks she was facing. 29.  On 25 February 2014, having received no information on the applicant’s situation, the Youth Court requested the competent social services departments to draw up a report on the measures taken to assist her. 30.  On 13 March 2014 the youth mental health department informed the Youth Court that the applicant had been diagnosed as being anti-social and drug-dependent and that she had agreed to being placed in a treatment centre (comunità terapeutica). The department had therefore requested the V.L. centre to admit her. 31.  On 17 March 2014 the department dealing with drug dependency issues informed the Youth Court that the applicant had not consented to her placement and that, in any event, a psychiatric expert opinion was required prior to placement. 32.  On 27 March 2014 the social services requested that the applicant be placed in a care facility as a temporary measure. On 31 March 2014 the care facility that been chosen stated that it did not have any places available. 33.  In a report of 3 April 2014 the department dealing with drug dependency issues informed the court that it had chosen a treatment centre where the applicant could undergo rehabilitation. 34.  On 3 April 2014 V.C.’s parents requested the Youth Court to enforce the decision of 9 December 2013 ordering their daughter’s placement in a specialist institution in order to help her. They also requested that a curator be appointed and that the court take urgent steps to protect their daughter. 35.  On 4 April 2014 the Youth Court ordered the child’s immediate placement in the Karisma treatment centre. The measure took effect on 14 April 2014. 36.  On 2 July 2014 the staff of the Karisma centre observed that the applicant’s behaviour was challenging owing to her drug and alcohol dependency. 37.  On 19 December 2014 the Karisma treatment centre informed the social services that the applicant’s problems persisted and that it did not have the necessary infrastructure to deal with them in view of the applicant’s drug addiction. They requested her transfer to a facility specialising in the treatment of minors with drug dependency problems. 38.  The social services did not respond to this request. 39.  On 7 September 2015 V.C. left the Karisma centre and returned to live with her parents. 40.  On 22 October 2015 the social services sent a report to the Youth Court stressing that two meetings had been held with the applicant’s parents and that a psychiatric expert assessment had been carried out. According to the expert, the applicant had problems with numeracy and was advised to follow a course of pharmacological treatment. 41.  On 19 May 2016 the Youth Court held a hearing that was not attended by the social services. The applicant gave evidence. She stated that she had gone back to school and was continuing to be monitored by the social services. She said that she had made new friends and had had a positive experience in the treatment centre. 42.  On 1 June 2016 the public prosecutor’s office approved the continuation of the programme that had been put in place. The applicant stated that no such programme had actually been in place. 43.  On 22 December 2016 the Youth Court gave notice to two representatives of the social services to appear before it in order to provide an update on the applicant’s situation. According to the social services, the applicant’s situation had improved and their involvement was thus no longer necessary. 44.  On 10 January 2017 the public prosecutor issued an opinion in favour of discontinuing the proceedings instituted on the basis of Article 25 of Royal Decree no. 1404 of 1934. 45.  In a decision of 17 January 2017 the Youth Court discontinued the proceedings. 46.  An investigation into the prostitution ring was opened in April 2013 and was concluded in December of that year. 47.  On 25 September 2013 the public prosecutor at the Youth Court reported on the applicant’s situation to his counterpart at the Rome District Court. 48.  The applicant gave evidence in the criminal investigation on 4 and 9 December 2013. She said that she had worked as a prostitute for two individuals. 49.  On 16 January and 6 February 2014 two suspects were arrested. 50.  On 21 January 2014 the prosecuting authorities again heard evidence from the applicant. 51.  On 26 March 2014, at the ad hoc hearing (incidente probatorio), the applicant reiterated that she had worked as a prostitute for the two suspects between August and December 2013. 52.  On 17 November 2014 the Rome District Court sentenced the two defendants to prison terms of five years and four years respectively for living on the earnings of prostitution. It also ordered them to pay damages to the applicant, who had applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. The court found that the two defendants had put pressure on the applicant to engage in prostitution, had benefited from the applicant’s prostitution and had shared the proceeds. In its decision the court stated that the applicant had been the victim of sexual exploitation from August to December 2013 and that the defendants had been aware of her age.
On 4 February 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. 53.  The applicant stated that she had not received the amount awarded by the courts in respect of damages. 54. An investigation into the gang rape (violenza sessuale di gruppo) of the applicant on the night of 30 January 2014 was opened concerning two suspects. The case was set down for preliminary hearing on 6 November 2015 before the Rome District Court. It appears from the file that a further hearing was held on 16 February 2016 and that the proceedings are still pending.