Published on 21 March 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 24733/15
N.Ö.
against Turkey
lodged on 29 April 2015
communicated on 3 March 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns allegations of sexual assault related to the workplace. The applicant submitted that in July 2010 M.Y., her supervisor, entered her apartment without being invited and forced her to perform oral sex on him when she refused to engage in sexual intercourse. On 8 March 2012 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against M.Y., alleging sexual assault. The public prosecutor rejected her complaint on account of the delay in reporting the incident. Pursuant to the applicant challenging the prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute, criminal proceedings were lodged against M.Y. During the trial, the criminal court questioned M.Y., who stated that the applicant had consented to having oral sex and had in fact initiated foreplay. The court also accepted witness statements mainly regarding the nature of the workplace relationship between the applicant and M.Y.; and admitted into evidence two psychiatric forensic expert reports, the first of which considered that the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression suffered by the applicant “corresponded” to a sexual assault trauma and the second of which concluded that her symptoms “could have only been caused by” a sexual assault incident. A third psychiatric report, submitted by the applicant but not considered by the court, confirmed the findings of the other reports and further noted that delays in reporting sexual assault were common in patients suffering from PTSD.
On 13 November 2013 the criminal court acquitted M.Y. holding that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the sexual act had been non-consensual. In reaching this conclusion the court noted the lack of direct evidence, inconclusive nature of witness testimonies and the delay the applicant took to come forward with her complaint notwithstanding the conclusions of forensic experts.
Relying on Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the reasoning of the domestic courts, in particular about their reliance on the timeliness of her complaint and their failure to take into account the conclusions of forensic experts.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the authorities fulfilled their positive and/or procedural obligations under Article 8 of the Convention in the present case (see, in general, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §153, §§ 181-185, ECHR 2003‑XII? In particular:
(a) Did the prosecuting authorities and the criminal courts, conduct a thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements? In that connection, was the manner in which the courts considered the timeliness of applicant’s complaint in the light of the forensic experts’ conclusions compatible with the respect for the applicant’s private life?
(b) Moreover, did the courts give sufficient and convincing reasons as to how the delay in applicant reporting the alleged assault affected the assessment of the case?
2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the grounds of gender/sex, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention in the particular context of sexual assault related to workplace (see, mutatis mutandis, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 200, ECHR 2009)?