Information Note on the Court’s case-law 207
May 2017
Bălșan v. Romania - 49645/09
Judgment 23.5.2017 [Section IV]
Article 14
Discrimination
Failure of authorities to take appropriate action to address domestic violence against women: violation
Article 3
Positive obligations
Failure of authorities to take adequate measures to protect applicant from domestic violence: violation
Facts – The applicant reported that her ex-husband had been violent towards her throughout their marriage. During their divorce proceedings his assaults against her had intensified and she made various complaints to the police. Before the European Court the applicant complained that she had been subjected to violence by her husband and that the State authorities had done little to stop it or to prevent it from happening again.
Law – Article 3: The physical violence suffered by the applicant had been documented in forensic medical and police reports. It was concerning that at the investigation level and before the courts the national authorities had considered the acts of domestic violence as being provoked and thus not serious enough to fall within the scope of the criminal law. The question of impunity for acts of domestic violence was at the heart of the case. The applicant had made full use of the remedy provided by criminal procedure but the national authorities, although aware of her situation, had failed to take appropriate measures to punish the offender and prevent further assaults.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 3: The failure by a State to protect women against domestic violence breached their right to equal protection under the law. Official statistics showed that domestic violence was tolerated and even perceived as normal by a majority of people in Romania and that a rather small number of reported incidents were followed by criminal investigations. The number of victims of domestic violence had increased every year, the vast majority of victims being women. Those considerations were in line with previous findings by the United Nations Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women.*
The national authorities had been well aware that the applicant’s husband had repeatedly subjected her to violence. They had deprived the national legal framework of its purpose by finding that she had provoked the domestic violence, that the violence had not presented a danger to society and was not therefore severe enough to require criminal sanctions. In doing so, they had acted in a way that was clearly inconsistent with international standards on violence against women and domestic violence in particular.** The authorities’ passivity in the case was also apparent from their failure to consider any protective measures for the applicant, despite her repeated requests to the police, the prosecutor and the courts. Bearing in mind the particular vulnerability of victims of domestic violence, the authorities ought to have looked into the applicant’s situation more thoroughly.
The violence suffered by the applicant could be regarded as gender-based violence, which was a form of discrimination against women. Despite the adoption by the Government of a law and national strategy on preventing and combatting domestic violence, the overall unresponsiveness of the judicial system and the impunity enjoyed by aggressors, as found in the case, indicated that there was an insufficient commitment to take appropriate action to address domestic violence. The criminal-law system, as operated in the case, did not have an adequate deterrent effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts by the applicant’s husband against the personal integrity of the applicant.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 9,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Opuz v. Turkey, 33401/02, 9 June 2009, Information Note 120; T.M. and C.M. v. the Republic of Moldova, 26608/11, 28 January 2014; Talpis v. Italy, 41237/14, 2 March 2017; and, more generally, the Factsheet on Violence against Women)
* Thirty-fifth session of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination against Women, concluding comments in respect of Romania, CEDAW/C/ROM/CO/6, 15 May to 2 June 2006.
** See the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence (“the Istanbul Convention”).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy