Communicated on 20 March 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 49645/09 Angelica Camelia CÄ‚MÄ‚RÄ‚ÅžESCU against Romania lodged on 4 September 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Angelica Camelia Cămărăşescu , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Petroșani .

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Events of 24 June, 3 and 8 September 2007

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. The applicant married N.C. in 1979 and they had four children. Throughout their marriage N.C. was violent towards the applicant and their children on numerous occasions. In 2007, when N.C. became involved in an extramarital relationship and filed for divorce, the assaults against the applicant intensified. Their divorce was finalised on 6 December 2008.

4. On 24 June and 3 September 2007 the applicant was physically assaulted and threatened by her husband. According to medical certificates, her injuries required five to six days of medical care for the first incident and two to three days for the second incident.

5. On 8 September 2007 the applicant was again physically assaulted by her husband. After the arrival of the police, she was taken to hospital by ambulance. She was diagnosed with an open facial trauma and a contusion of the nasal pyramid. According to a forensic medical certificate issued on 13 September 2007, the injuries could have been caused by being hit with a hard object and required eight to nine days of medical care.

6. After each of the above-mentioned incidents the applicant called the police. The police officers noted that the applicant was injured and informed her that she could lodge an official complaint against N.C.

7. On 3 August and 1 October 2007 the applicant lodged complaints with the prosecutor ’ s office of the Petroșani District Court alleging that she had been beaten by her husband, in their home, in the presence of their children on 24 June, 3 and 8 September 2007. She attached copies of the medical documents and police reports issued following the incidents.

8. On 19 December 2007 the prosecutor ’ s office of the Petroșani District Court decided not to press criminal charges against N.C. and imposed an administrative sanction, namely a fine in the amount of 200 Romanian lei (RON). The prosecutor concluded that, according to the statements of the applicant ’ s two adult daughters and the statement by N.C., it was the applicant who had provoked the disputes after drinking alcohol. The prosecutor therefore decided that, although N.C. had committed the crime of physical assault, taking account of the facts that he was provoked, had no previous criminal record and was a retired person ( pensionar ), it was not necessary to indict him.

9. The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision before the superior prosecutor. Her complaint was rejected on 25 March 2008.

10. On 21 April 2008 the applicant contested the prosecutors ’ decisions of 19 December 2007 and 25 March 2008 before the court, requesting that N.C. be charged and convicted for causing physical injury and that he be ordered to pay her compensation for non-pecuniary damage. She alleged that the administrative fine, which N.C. had refused to pay, had not had a deterrent effect on him as he had continued to assault her even after the prosecutor ’ s decision of 19 December 2007 and she asked the courts to impose criminal sanctions on him.

11. On 17 February 2009 the Petroșani District Court examined the case on the merits and acquitted N.C. of the crime of causing physical injury. In reaching its decision the court held that the applicant had not proved beyond doubt that N.C. had assaulted her and, if any assault had indeed occurred, it had been provoked by the applicant. However, N.C. was ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of RON 500. The court further rejected the applicant ’ s claims for damages as ill-founded without giving any further reasons.

12. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that decision. She alleged that N.C. was a violent person who already been ordered to pay administrative fines in the past but had never paid them and had continued to assault her, even after 19 December 2007. She submitted that only a criminal sanction would have a deterrent effect on him. She also complained that her claim for damages had been unfairly rejected.

13. On 12 May 2009 the Hunedoara County Court dismissed as ill-founded the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law and upheld the decision of 17 February 2009. The court held that the acts of violence committed by N.C. had been provoked by the applicant and therefore did not reach the severity level required for them to fall within the scope of the crime of causing physical injury and justify an award of damages.

2. Events between February and April 2008

14. On 27 March 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Hunedoara County Police requesting the enforcement of the measures provided by law in order to stop the constant assaults on the part of N.C. Her complaint remained unanswered.

15. On 5 April 2008 the applicant called the police in order to put an end to another violent incident. Police officers came to the applicant ’ s house and drafted a report on the incident. The applicant was taken to hospital where she was diagnosed with contusion of the left knee caused by physical assault.

16. Between 19 February and 21 April 2008 the applicant lodged five complaints with the Petroșani police concerning new incidents in which she had been assaulted or threatened by N.C., including the incident of 5 April 2008. She attached a forensic medical certificate stating that on 10 February 2008 she had attended the emergency unit of the Petroșani Hospital, where she had been diagnosed with a contusion of the nasal pyramid and excoriations on both arms. The forensic doctor noted that the injuries might have been caused by an assault with a hard object and by scratching and required three to four days of medical care. These complaints, together with the complaint lodged on 27 March 2008, were forwarded to the prosecutor ’ s office in order to be dealt with.

17. On 29 September 2008 the prosecutor ’ s office of the Petroșani District Court decided not to press charges against N.C. for the five incidents described by the applicant since there was no evidence that he had committed the assaults complained of. The applicant ’ s complaint of 27 March 2008, requesting the police to take the necessary measures in order to stop the constant assaults against her, was dismissed by the prosecutor, who found that in this case, unlike the other incidents, the victim did not refer to a specific attack. No explanation was given regarding the incident of 5 April 2008, which was documented in a police report and on a medical certificate. There is no information in the file stating whether the applicant lodged further complaints about that decision.

B. Relevant domestic law

18. The relevant provisions of the Romanian Criminal Code concerning the crime of physical assault as well as the provisions of Law no. 217 of 2003 on preventin g and combating domestic violence are summarised in E.M. v. Romania (no. 43994/05, §§ 41 and 43, 30 October 2012).

COMPLAINT

19. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the authorities constantly dismissed her complaints and failed to take any effective measures to protect her from the ill-treatment she had suffered at the hands of her violent husband .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by N.C . attain the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see Valiulien ė v. Lithuania , no. 33234/07, §§ 65-70, 26 March 2013) ?

2. If so, and having regard to the States ’ positive obligations under Article 1 and 3 of the Convention, has the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms have been applied in the present case by the domestic authorities been in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention (see E.M. v Romania, no. 43994/05, §§ 58-60, 30 October 2012 ) ?

3. Alternatively, has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the Convention (see Kalucza v. Hungary , no. 57693 / 10 , §§ 58 and 59 , 24 April 2012 )?