Date: December 2007

European Committee of Social Rights recommends prohibition in the home

The European Committee of Social Rights has published its conclusions on its 2007 examinations of states’ implementation of article 17 of the Revised Social Charter. The Committee has consistently made clear that conformity with article 17 requires explicit prohibition in legislation of all corporal punishment of children, including within the family home.

In its 2007 Conclusions, it found the situation in Armenia (Conclusions XVIII-1, vol.1) to be not in conformity with the Charter “on the ground that corporal punishment of children within the family and alternative child care is not prohibited”.

The Committee found Belgium to be in non conformity with article 17 because of the absence of prohibition in the home. Recalling its earlier decision under the collective complaints procedure, the Committee stated (Conclusions XVIII-1, vol. 1):

“The Committee recalls that the situation, which was found not to be in conformity with the Charter in both the previous conclusion and in its decision on the merits of the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v Belgium (complaint No. 21/2003 decision on the merit, 7 September 2004), has not changed. Since then the Committee clarified that in order ‘to comply with Article 17, states’ domestic law must prohibit and penalise all forms of violence against children, that is acts or behaviour likely to affect the physical integrity, dignity, development or psychological well being of children. The relevant provisions must be sufficiently clear, binding and precise, so as to preclude the courts from refusing to apply them to violence against children. Moreover, states must act with due diligence to ensure that such violence is eliminated in practice’ (World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v Portugal, complaint No. 34/2006, decision on the merits of 5 December 2006, §§19-21). The Committee concludes that Belgium is not in conformity with Article 17 on the ground that domestic law does not fulfill the conditions set above as far as corporal punishment of children is concerned.”

The Committee also referred to its 2006 decision on Portugal in relation to Italy. This is significant because Italy prohibited corporal punishment in childrearing in a Supreme Court decision in 1996 but has to date not confirmed this explicitly in legislation. Until 2007, Portugal had also relied on case law prohibiting all corporal punishment, but it was found necessary to enact explicit prohibition in legislation when a Supreme Court decision overturned that case law and ruled that corporal punishment was necessary in childrearing. Regarding Italy, the Committee stated (Conclusions XVIII-1, vol.2):

“The Committee recalls that the situation was found to be in conformity with the Charter in both the previous conclusion and in its decision on the merits of World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v Italy (complaint No. 19/2003, decision on the merits of 8 December 2004). Italy prohibits corporal punishment of children within the family through a combination of legislation and case law (Decision No. 4909 of 16 May 1996 of the Court of Cassation). Since then, the Committee affirmed that in order ‘to comply with Article 17, states’ domestic law must prohibit and penalise all forms of violence against children, that is acts or behaviour likely to affect the physical integrity, dignity, development or psychological well being of children. The relevant provisions must be sufficiently clear, binding and precise, so as to preclude the courts from refusing to apply them to violence against children. Moreover, states must act with due diligence to ensure that such violence is eliminated in practice’ (World Organisation against Torture (OMCT)v Portugal, complaint No. 34/2006, Decision on the Merits of 5 December 2006, §§19-21).

The Committee asks that the next report explain whether this ruling is still good law.”

Click here for more detailed reports on corporal punishment of children in Armenia, Belgium and Italy.

Top