Communicated on 4 March 2021 Published on 22 March 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 59809/19 R.E. against Iceland and 3 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applicants complain that the respondent State has failed its positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention to carry out effective criminal investigations into and prosecute their charges for sexual and/or domestic violence. The applicants also complain under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 § 1, that the respondent State has as a result failed to protect them as women against domestic and gender-based violence.

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

3. Application no 8034/20 lodged on 29 January 2020 by L.S. The applicant pressed charges in September 2017 against a man for sexual assault committed in July 2017. A statement was taken from the applicant in September 2017 and the accused in March 2018. The District Prosecutor notified the applicant in May 2019 that the case had been closed on the grounds that it was not likely to lead to a conviction. The State Prosecutor upheld the decision in August 2019. The applicant was granted anonymity by this Court on 16 February 2021.

4. Application no 17006/20 lodged on 23 March 2020 by B.A. The applicant pressed charges in December 2017 against her ex-cohabiting partner for domestic abuse, physical attacks and sexual assaults during their relationship in 2011-2014. A statement was taken from the applicant in December 2017 and the accused in September 2018. The police notified the applicant in June 2019 that the case had been closed on the grounds that the sexual assault charges were not likely to lead to a conviction and that the physical assault charges had lapsed when she pressed them. The State Prosecutor upheld the decision in September 2019. The applicant was granted anonymity by this Court on 16 February 2021.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the positive obligations of States inherent in Articles 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation and prosecution of acts of sexual assault and domestic violence, were the investigations in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of the above-mentioned Articles (see, inter alia , M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, §§ 148-53, 4 December 2003, and E.B. v. Romania , no. 49089/10, §§ 53-56, 19 March 2019)?

In particular, did the delays in taking statements from the accused fall short of the requirements inherent in the States ’ positive obligation to establish and apply effectively a criminal-law system punishing all forms of sexual assault and domestic abuse (see P.M. v. Bulgaria , no. 49669/07, § 64, 24 January 2012)?

3. Have the applicants suffered gender-based discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, §§ 184-91, ECHR 2009, and Volodina v. Russia , no. 41261/17, §§ 109-14, 9 July 2019)?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION (no 59813/19)

4. As concerns the second applicant (M.A.) , did the delay in taking statements from the accused lead to the unjustified expiry of the statute of limitation in breach of the State ’ s positive obligations inherent in Articles 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation and prosecution of acts of sexual assault and domestic violence (see P.M. v. Bulgaria , no. 49669/07, § 64, 24 January 2012)?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

Year of birth

Represented by

59809/19

08/11/2019

R.E.

1994Sigrún Ingibjörg GÍSLADÓTTIR

59813/19

08/11/2019

M.A.

1972Sigrún Ingibjörg GÍSLADÓTTIR

8034/20

29/01/2020

L.S.

1999Sigrún Ingibjörg GÍSLADÓTTIR

17006/20

23/03/2020

B.A.

1975Sigrún Ingibjörg GÍSLADÓTTIR