Published on 7 July 2025
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 10335/25
G.S. and FUNDAȚIA CENTRUL DE RESURSE JURIDICE
against Romania
lodged on 21 March 2025
communicated on 16 June 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the allegations of degrading and inhuman treatment and lack of prompt and proper assistance and medical care to which the first applicant, a severely disabled person, was subject to in the publicly run Medical and Social Care Centre where she was placed.
The first applicant is a 37-year-old woman suffering from profound mental retardation, an IQ under 20, multiple system atrophy, encephalopathy, blindness, malnutrition, chronic hepatitis, and other severe conditions. She is considered, by an administrative decision of the competent body, as a “severely disabled person necessitating a personal assistant” (cu însoţitor). She is represented before the Court by the second applicant, the Centre for Legal Resources (“the CLR”), a Romanian NGO active at domestic level for monitoring activities and campaigning in favour of disabled persons.
Because of her severe congenital disability, since she was only a few months old, as from April 1989, the first applicant was placed in the public care (leagănul de copii) with the agreement of her parents, considering that they did not have adequate means to take proper care of her. She has remained in the State’s care ever since. Having already been diagnosed with multiple conditions, in 2000 she was placed in a specialized centre, the Băbeni Rehabilitation Centre for Disabled Children, as a protection measure.
In 2012, the applicant was admitted to the Zătreni Care and Assistance Center (“the Zătreni Centre”), under the Vâlcea General Directorate of Social Assistance and Child Protection (“the Vâlcea GDSACP”). Since then, she has consistently weighed around 20 kilograms (which represents a decrease of 30 % of her weight, as registered before) and has required permanent care.
On 18 July 2021, after noticing swelling in the first applicant’s leg, the nurse on duty at the Zătreni Centre informed the centre’s doctor and called an ambulance. The first applicant was taken to the Vâlcea County Emergency Hospital, where her fractured femur was immobilized in a plaster cast. She was hospitalized until 28 July 2021. The hospital discharge summary indicated hospitalization due to “an alteration of physical mobility resulting from an injury (fall)” and recommended immobilization of the leg for 6‑8 weeks, with follow-up medical examinations after 21 days, 3 months, or 6 months. The first applicant was not brought back for a medical examination after 21 days but only after 6 weeks when another incident occurred.
On 6 September 2021, the nurse noticed bruising and swelling in the first applicant’s right arm. After examination by the centre’s doctor, an ambulance was called. She was taken to the Drăgășani Municipal Hospital, diagnosed with a right humerus fracture without displacement, and subjected to an X‑ray of both her shoulder/arm and previously injured leg. She was brought back to the Zătreni Centre the same day.
Following a call received from a Zătreni Centre staff member, two CLR staff members conducted an unannounced monitoring visit on 25 November 2021. Concerned about the first applicant’s serious condition, they called an ambulance, which took her to the Drăgășani Municipal Hospital. Following the medical examination, the surgeon recommended an outpatient orthopaedic consultation and concluded that the case did not represent a surgical or orthopaedic emergency. Thus, the first applicant was brought back to the Zătreni Centre the same day.
On 2 December 2021, the first applicant was examined by a doctor at the Orthopaedics and Traumatology Department of the Vâlcea Emergency Hospital. She was hospitalized for a week and undertook various examinations. According to the hospital discharge summary, the doctor recommended continuing treatment, including kinesiotherapy and nursing, with orthopaedic examinations at 6 and 9 months after hospitalization or as needed.
On 3 December 2021, the CLR initiated criminal proceedings on behalf of the first applicant, arguing that she had not received adequate medical care and treatment for her femur fracture for over six months, causing her health to deteriorate. The CLR requested an investigation into the following criminal offences: failure to report (omisiunea sesizării), misconduct in public office, and ill-treatment (supunerea la rele tratamente).
On 4 December 2021, the prosecutor initiated criminal investigations (începerea urmăririi penale) and ordered to conduct an on-site investigation at the Zătreni Centre. Documents related to the first applicant’s medical file were seized by the investigators. Several witnesses were heard. In August 2022, a forensic medical report concluded, amongst others, that the injuries suffered by the first applicant between 2017-2021 “were most likely caused by hitting a hard body/surface (possibly falling)”. The first applicant’s lawyer requested a new forensic medical examination, claiming that the existing report was unclear and contradictory. In return, the Mina Minovici Institute of Forensic Medicine endorsed the existing report.
On 28 February 2023, the prosecutor discontinued the investigation, finding that the alleged acts did not exist (based on Article 16 § 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) as far as the offences of failure to report and ill-treatment were concerned. For the alleged misconduct in public office, he concluded that no criminal offence had been committed (based on Article 16 § 1 (b) first sentence of the CCP).
The CLR challenged the prosecutor’s decision and supplemented the initial claim, requesting the that the facts receive the legal qualification of negligence in public office (neglijență în serviciu). The chief prosecutor dismissed the challenge and decided to send a copy of the claim regarding the alleged negligence in public office to the competent prosecutor’s office. The CLR then challenged the chief prosecutor’s decision.
By a judicial decision of 13 October 2023, the Preliminary Chamber Judge of the Bălcești Court of First Instance allowed the CLR’s action regarding the failure to report and misconduct in public office offences and sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the investigation, indicating the aspects that still needed to be clarified and requesting additional evidence, including witness statements.
On 19 November 2024, the prosecutor discontinued the investigation again, finding that no criminal offence had been committed due to the lack of the subjective element (Article 16 § 1 (b), second sentence of the CCP). The prosecutor noted that it could not be established based on the evidence collected that the first applicant’s current health condition resulted from the failure to attend a medical check-up 21 days after the fracture, especially as the forensic medical report did not exclude the occurrence of fractures due to the first applicant’s previous medical conditions. Thus, the prosecutor concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that any of the Vâlcea GDSACP or Zătreni Centre staff members did not properly fulfil their duties in providing care and medical assistance to the first applicant. The prosecutor’s order was served to the CLR on 22 November 2024.
The CLR did not challenge the prosecutor’s order, claiming that the actions provided for under Articles 339 and 340 of the CCP no longer constitute an effective remedy, since it became obvious that the first applicant’s situation could not be clarified by the investigative authorities. The CLR also claimed that, according to a report issued by the Council for Monitoring the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“the Monitoring Council”), in 2023 the first applicant suffered other fractures for which no explanations had been obtained, indicating a continuous violation of her fundamental rights. The report also concluded that the Zătreni Centre was unable to provide services that meet the needs of the beneficiaries; the latter who frequently suffered accidents due to insufficient staff or their inadequate training.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the CLR complains about the State’s failure to safeguard the first applicant’s right to protection against inhuman or degrading treatment by providing adequate medical care and about the lack of an effective investigation. The CLR criticises, in particular, the investigative authorities’ administration and assessment of the evidence, given that it was not clarified how the first applicant’s multiple fractures over the past years had occurred, nor why her health had deteriorated.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the medical situation and legal capacity of the first applicant, has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the first applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, what is the appropriate mechanism to ensure that the first applicant is able to effectively exercise her right to individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention?
2. Can the second applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?
3. Has the first applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the medical situation and legal capacity of the first applicant, was the contestation of the prosecutor’s decision of 19 November 2024 to discontinue the investigations for the second time (after an initial similar decision was overruled by a court), an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the first applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Does the manner in which the authorities have handled, and are currently handling their obligation to provide the first applicant with care and treatment, in view of her particular medical and legal situation, constitute inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
5. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
6. The Government are invited to submit information concerning:
(a) the guardianship procedures, if any, instituted in respect of the first applicant;
(b) the available records for the period between 2012 to date concerning the personal assistant to which the first applicant was entitled, as “severely disabled person necessitating a personal assistant”, including the duties of the personal assistant and any relevant work arrangements (working hours, night shifts, replacement during holidays) concerning in particular the care provided to the first applicant;
(c) the investigation file regarding the incidents leading to the repeated injuries suffered by first applicant and regarding the deterioration of her health;
(d) the Zătreni Care and Assistance Centre’s situation regarding the number of patients and staff (medical and administrative) and the standard guardianship procedures, if any, applied with respect to those patients suitable for such procedures according to the domestic law.