FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF QAMA v. ALBANIA AND ITALY
 
(Application no. 4604/09)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
8 January 2013
 
 
FINAL
 
08/04/2013
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Qama v. Albania and Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ineta Ziemele, President,
 David Thór Björgvinsson,
 Guido Raimondi,
 Päivi Hirvelä,
 George Nicolaou,
 Ledi Bianku,
 Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 December 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 4604/09) against the Republic of Albania and the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Albanian national, Mr Flamur Qama (“the applicant”), on 23 December 2008. 2. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their then Agent, Mrs E. Hajro and, subsequently, by Ms L. Mandia of the State Advocate’s Office. The Italian Government were represented by their then co-Agent, Mr N. Lettieri and, subsequently, by Ms P. Accardo. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that there had been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention on account of the Albanian and Italian authorities’ failure to secure the right of contact with his child in Italy. 4. On 21 September 2009 the application was communicated to the respondent Governments. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Durrës. He has a son who was born on 25 August 1994. The son is currently 18 years old. 6. In September 1999 the applicant’s late spouse, who was suffering from a serious disease, entered Italy irregularly, together with the son, in order to obtain medical treatment. On an unspecified date the applicant joined his spouse and son in Italy. 7. On an unspecified date in either August or September 2002, following disagreements with his in-laws, the applicant was expelled from Italy since he did not have a residence permit. His wife and son, whose situation had not yet been regularised, continued to remain in Italy. His wife died on 7 October 2002. A. Custody proceedings in Italy
8. On 17 October 2002, the applicant’s sister-in-law, Z., filed an action with the Ancona Youth Court (“the Italian court” - tribunale per i minorenni), seeking custody of the applicant’s child. 9. On 30 December 2002 a report of the local social health centre stated that the child feared to return and live with the father because of his alleged ill-treatment of the deceased mother. The report further mentioned that the father had abandoned the child and the spouse without notice at a time when they needed him most. 10. On 4 June 2003 the Italian court granted Z.’s request. It entrusted 
Z. with the custody of the applicant’s child, under the supervision of the Social Service of the city of Senigallia (affida il minore alla zia ... sotto la vigilanza del Servizio Sociale del Comune di Senigallia...). It further appointed the Mayor of Senigallia as the child’s temporary guardian (tutore provvisorio). The court suspended the parents’ parental rights (dichiara sospesa la potestà dei genitori) on the ground that they had allowed the child to leave Albania without addressing the serious difficulties that he would subsequently face. It further prohibited the child’s removal from Italian territory. It assigned the International Social Service (“ISS” – an NGO) to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s family situation. No provision was made as regards the applicant’s visiting or contact rights in respect of his child. 11. On 25 September 2003 the ISS, after trying to contact the applicant, informed the Italian court that he refused to speak to them. He simply requested that the child be returned to him. Following contacts with his neighbours, the ISS declared that the applicant had re-married and his wife was expecting a child. Being unemployed, he was living on his spouse’s income. 12. On 22 March 2004 the Italian social services provided the court with an update on the applicant’s child. By that time, the child’s status in Italy had been regularised and his situation appeared to be balanced.
13.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 8
Outcome: no_violation