Abstract

In the case of J.L. v. Italy the European Court of Human Rights has condemned Italy pursuant to art. 8 ECHR for having national judges used sexist expressions against J.L. within the motivation of the sentence, expressions that would convey the prejudices of Italian society on the role of women without, however, being decisive for the conclusion of the case. The author offers an alternative reading of the recognized state breaches, noting, inter alia, how the European Court has chosen a ‘moralizing’ approach, in contempt of the consolidated analysis technique of the so-called two stage test and without actually descending into the Italian legal system, especially with reference to the specific duty of motivation of the judicial authority on the subjective credibility of the injured party.