A few days ago, the European Court of Human Rights held that the inability to obtain an identity document to travel abroad on account of failure to pay maintenance entailed a violation of Article 2 of Protocol no 4. The Court was unanimous in reaching this conclusion.
The Strasbourg Court noted that the national courts had not considered it necessary to examine Mr Battista’s personal situation and his ability to pay the amounts due. The Court then argued that the Italian authorities should have taken into consideration the legal means of recovering debts abroad. It went on to criticize the fact that Mr Battista was imposed an automatic blanket measure of indefinite duration and that there had been no fresh examination of the reasons for the measure, or its proportionality, for several years. It concluded that the automatic imposition of such a measure, on an indefinite basis and without taking the applicant’s individual circumstances into account, could not be considered necessary in a democratic society (paragraph 48).
Here is the French original:
“48. A la lumière de ce qui précède, la Cour considère que l’imposition automatique d’une telle mesure, pour une durée indéterminée, sans prise en compte des circonstances propres à l’intéressé, ne peut être qualifiée de nécessaire dans une société démocratique”.
European Civil Justice 