CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE WOJTYCZEK

1. I agree with my colleagues concerning the operative provisions of the judgment in the present case, but would nevertheless like to add a few qualifications as regards the reasoning.

2. The present case concerns a minor who was aged 17 at the time the application was lodged. The way in which the reasoning is worded may raise doubts as to the admissibility of the application.

Normally speaking, minors are represented by their parents, who take the decisions regarding the use of legal remedies in order to assert their children ’ s rights. In particular, it is for the parents to decide whether to lodge an application with the C ourt concerning their children ’ s rights. I note in this context that the application lodged in the applicant ’ s name was duly signed by both parents. The application is therefore admissible . I further note that the applicant , after reaching full age, expressed – by various means – her wish to conti nue the proceedings before the C ourt.

3. The task of protecting children from abuse linked to drugs and prostitution falls primarily to the parents; the S tate ’ s role is first and foremost to reinforce parental authority and help the parents to exercise it in an effective manner . The difficulty of the present case is linked to the parents ’ inability to protect their daughter from drugs and prostitution.

In its reasoning, the C ourt expresse s the view that the Italian authorities did not take all reasonable measures to prevent the abuse of which the applicant was a victim. At the same time, it implies that the applicant ’ s placement in the Karisma centre was the appropriate measure. However, this approach is not unproblematic .

It should be noted at the outset that, whilst the parents requested the authorities to act, they appear to have agreed to their daughter ’ s placement only on 3 April 2014. Furthermore, it must be stressed that the measure that was advocated considerably restricted the applicant ’ s freedom , and that she opposed it until January 2014. The application effectively criticises the Italian authorities for not acting against the applicant ’ s wishes as a minor and not restricting her personal freedom. In other words, the applicant complains of the fact that the authorities failed to protect her not just from other people, but from herself. It is undeniable that the parents and, where applicable , the authorities, can and must protect minor s against themselves if the latter ’ s interests so require. Nevertheless, it is difficult if not impossible to treat drug addiction effectively without the cooperation of the patient, even if he or she is an adolescent, and especially without winning his or her trust . Thus, the Italian authorities were faced with a particularly difficult situation.

On the other hand, the authorities undoubtedly failed in their first obligation in this case, which was to conduct the proceedings before the Y outh Court with the requisite promptness and to give a decision in that case. It emerges from the case file that the competent departments did not attempt to lend the parents the appropriate psychological support and the necessary assistance before seeking to restrict their parental authority. Moreover, it has not been established that the various departments undertook the necessary efforts to persuade the applicant of the necessity of seeking treatment for her drug addiction, or to win her trust. These considerations provide sufficient basis for finding a violation of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case.