The ECHR judgment of 23 May 2017 in the case of Balsan v. Romania (application No. 49645/09).
In 2009, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Romania.
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about the authorities' avoidance of taking reasonable measures to eliminate domestic violence against women. The case was violated the requirements of Articles 3, 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant stated that her ex-husband had used violence throughout her marriage. During the divorce proceedings, his attacks on her increased, and she filed several complaints to the police. In the European Court, the applicant complained that she had been subjected to violence by her husband and that the authorities had avoided suppressing or preventing these actions.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 3 of the Convention (the issue of compliance by the State with its positive obligations (procedural and legal aspects)). The physical violence suffered by the applicant was recorded in forensic and police records. At the investigation stages and in courts, domestic authorities considered acts of domestic violence as provoked and therefore not serious enough to be classified as criminal law. The essence of the case was the issue of impunity for acts of domestic violence. The applicant fully utilized the remedy provided for in the criminal procedure, but the Romanian authorities, although aware of her situation, did not take appropriate measures to punish the perpetrator and prevent further attacks.
The violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.
Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention. Evasion of the state from the protection of women from domestic violence violated their right to equal protection by law. Official statistics show that the majority of the Romanian population tolerated domestic violence and even considered it to be normal and that a relatively small number of registered incidents were accompanied by a criminal investigation. The number of victims of domestic violence increased year by year, and a large majority of victims were women. These considerations were consistent with the earlier conclusions of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. 35th session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, concluding observations on Romania, CEDAW / C / ROM / CO / 6, 15 May-2 June 2006. The domestic authorities were well aware that the applicant was constantly abused side of her husband. They deprived the national legal base of the goal, indicating that the applicant herself provoked domestic violence and that violence did not pose a threat to society, and therefore was not serious enough to demand the imposition of criminal sanctions. At the same time, they acted in a way that clearly does not comply with international standards on violence against women and domestic violence, in particular (see, for example, the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention). in this case was also evident in view of their failure to consider protective measures for the applicant, despite her repeated appeals to the police, to the prosecutor and to the courts. "In view of the special vulnerability of victims of domestic violence, The violence to which the applicant was subjected could be considered gender-based violence, which is a form of discrimination against women Despite the adoption of the law by the authorities of the respondent State and the national strategy to prevent and combat domestic violence, the general immunity of the judiciary and the impunity of the aggressors, as established in the present case, showed that there is insufficient activity to take measures to combat domestic violence eat. The criminal legal system in force in the case did not have an adequate deterrent effect that could effectively prevent the applicant's husband's illegal actions against the applicant's personal integrity.
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant 9,800 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.