Published on 27 March 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 645/22 C.D.C. against Romania lodged on 22 December 2021 communicated on 9 March 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged lack of effectiveness of the criminal investigation into sexual violence inflicted on the applicant by a police officer, head of the local police station, who committed acts of sexual exhibitionism in front of the applicant in July 2013, when he was 8 years old. The applicant’s mother lodged a criminal complaint. By indictment of 19 April 2019, the prosecutor decided to send the case for trial. By judgment of 23 February 2021, the Dorohoi District Court found the police officer guilty of sexual corruption of children, sentenced him to a criminal fine amounting to 10,000 Romanian lei (RON) (around 2,000 euros (EUR)) and ordered him to pay RON 20,000 (around EUR 4,000) of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant. However, by final decision of 23 June 2021 the Suceava Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the police officer and lowered the amount of the fine to RON 6,000 (around EUR 1,200) and ordered him to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage amounting to RON 5,000 (around EUR 1,000), while the appeal of the applicant was dismissed. The appellate court lowered the amount of the fine and of the compensation awarded because of the time span between the perpetration of the act and the application of the sanction.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the procedural protection from all forms of ill ‑ treatment prohibited under Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV), was the conduct of the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case, relating to sexual abuse of a child by a police officer (investigations concluded by decision of 23 June 2021 of the Suceava Court of Appeal), in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention?

In particular, has the investigation been thorough and prompt and has it taken into account the child’s best interests (see, notably, C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania , no. 26692/05, §§ 70, 82-83, 20 March 2012; D.M.D. v. Romania , no. 23022/13, §§ 41 and 50-52, 3 October 2017, and M. and M. v. Croatia , no. 10161/13, §§ 136 and 142, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities comply with their positive obligations, inherent in the right to effective respect for private life, to investigate the allegations of sexual abuse and, if necessary, to prevent the reoccurrence of such treatment (see C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania , cited above, §§ 71-72; M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, §§ 150 ‑ 52, ECHR 2003 ‑ XII, and K.U. v. Finland , no. 2872/02, §§ 42-43, ECHR 2008)?

3. The Government is invited to submit factual information with respect to measures put in place – if any – in the present case, as well as in similar cases of criminal procedures involving sexual abuse of children, with the aim to ensure that the child’s best interest is taken into account and secondary victimisation is prevented ( N.Ç. v. Turkey , no. 40591/11, §§ 132-135, 9 February 2021).