CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 3 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s945796C9 { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s440A90EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2182C584 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5861958E { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none; list-style-position:outside } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB711C2B8 { width:34.45pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1E132B58 { width:7.7pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCDC5DB60 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s7C819FA5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17pt; text-align:justify } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB0B7814 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sDF837F39 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAAD7ECD0 { width:5.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8EEF439B { width:24.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s693BA7F2 { width:139.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF M.Ș.D. v. ROMANIA (Application no. 28935/21)     JUDGMENT Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private life • Inadequate criminal legal framework, at the material time, not affording the applicant protection against acts of online harassment committed by her former intimate partner consisting of the non-consensual public dissemination of intimate photographs of her • Failure to conduct prompt and thorough criminal investigation   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 3 December 2024   FINAL   03/03/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of M.Ș.D. v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lado Chanturia , President ,   Faris Vehabović,   Tim Eicke,   Jolien Schukking,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   28935/21) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Ms   M.Ș.D. (“the applicant”), on 26 May 2021; the decision to give notice of the application to the Romanian Government (“the   Government”); the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the Advice on Individual Rights in Europe Centre (“the AIRE Centre”), which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 12 November 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the national authorities’ response relating to the applicant’s complaint concerning alleged acts of online harassment committed by her former intimate partner from motives of revenge consisting of the public dissemination without her consent of intimate photographs of her. The applicant relies on Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1997 and lives in Craiova. She was represented by Ms T.C. Godîncă-Herlea, a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE    The background to the case 5.     During the summer of 2016, the applicant, who was eighteen years of age at that time, met V.C.A., who was twenty years of age, on the Facebook social media platform. The applicant had been admitted to a university and was going to study at the same faculty as V.C.A. They started exchanging online messages, together with intimate photographs of each other. Their online friendship developed into a brief romantic relationship that ended around the middle of October 2016. 6 .     Around the same time as their relationship ended, V.C.A. got into an argument with one of the applicant’s male friends because V.C.A had become jealous of that friend. After this incident, on 21 October 2016, V.C.A. created several fake Facebook accounts by using the identities of some of the applicant’s friends in order to disseminate the applicant’s intimate photographs. 7 .     On the same date V.C.A. sent the intimate photographs of the applicant to her brother, uncle and some of her brother’s close friends. The applicant attempted to get V.C.A. to stop, but in response he posted the same intimate photographs, together with her name and telephone number, on several websites advertising escort services. Soon thereafter he contacted her and informed her that he had no intention of stopping. 8.     Following the posts left by V.C.A. on the escort service websites the applicant received numerous telephone calls from unknown persons soliciting sexual services. 9 .     According to the applicant, V.C.A. had also behaved aggressively towards her both physically and verbally after their breakup. In particular, he had pushed the applicant on one occasion in October and he had threatened the applicant on the telephone and had told her that he was hoping that she would commit suicide in November. 10 .     The applicant alleged that V.C.A. had also written to her brother on 21   October 2016 that V.C.A.’s friends were going to spread the printed intimate photographs of the applicant around the university where V.C.A and the applicant were studying. V.C.A. continued to post intimate photographs of her on the websites advertising escort services until 21 November 2016, and he eventually ceased his acts at the end of November 2016.    The criminal investigation      The criminal complaint by the applicant 11 .     On 31 October 2016 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against V.C.A. with Bucharest police station no. 8 (“BPS 8”), presented the authorities with the information described in paragraph 7 above and asked them to take appropriate legal action against him. In addition, she submitted a USB allegedly containing recordings of conversations that she had had with V.C.A. and with his mother and evidence of the telephone calls described in paragraph 9 above. 12 .       On 29 November 2016 the applicant supplemented her criminal complaint and presented the authorities with the information recounted in paragraph 9 above.      The investigation conducted by BPS 8 13 .     The official reports indicated that from 25 December 2016 until 10   August 2018 a police officer attached to the BPS 8 – namely, one I.T.A. – attempted to contact the applicant repeatedly, mostly by telephone, to summon her to BPS   8 to give a statement in respect of the case. His attempts to contact the applicant remained mostly unsuccessful because the applicant was not responsive. However, according to two reports drafted by BPS 8 on 9   May and 10 August 2018 the applicant appeared at BPS 8 and stated that she would return on another date to give her statement. On 9 May 2018 she also stated that she had been aware that V.C.A. had been investigated by the police in 2015 for drug possession and had been ordered to perform unpaid community work and that she had no intention of causing him any harm. 14 .     On 4 May 2017 BPS 8 opened a criminal investigation in rem (that is, without a designated suspect) for the offences of threatening behaviour ( amenințare ) and violation of private life ( violarea vieții private ), under, respectively, Articles 206 § 1 and 226 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”). 15 .     On 22 August 2018 both the applicant and V.C.A. appeared at BPS 8 to give their statements in respect of the case. 16 .     In her statement, apart from essentially reiterating the information that had been included in her initial complaint (see paragraph 11 above), the applicant presented to the authorities the information set out in paragraph   6 above. She also stated that V.C.A. had accompanied his posts on the websites advertising escort services with information that had included her home address, and that the posts in question had been erased automatically after two or three days. She further stated that V.C.A. had not hit her or threatened her with acts of physical violence. 17 .     V.C.A. denied that he had ever hit or threatened the applicant. Nevertheless, he admitted to having committed the acts described in paragraph   7 above through the medium of Facebook. He further stated that he had acted in this manner from jealousy and rage, because he had seen the applicant behaving affectionately towards the applicant’s friend mentioned in paragraph   6 above and because the applicant had disseminated to some of her colleagues a picture of him taken after the argument that he had had with the man in question, accompanied by an offensive comment. 18 .     On 22 August 2018 I.T.A. informed the applicant that he needed to take a witness statement from her brother (who was living abroad), and she agreed to inform BPS 8 of the date of her brother’s next visit to the country when she learned of it. 19 .     On 11 December 2018 the applicant lodged a challenge ( recuzat ) against I.T.A. with the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest District Court (“the prosecutor’s office”). She asserted that before her interview of 22   August 2018 (see paragraph 16 above) I.T.A. had called her repeatedly in order to summon her to BPS 8 and that one evening he had even cut in front of her in his car as she had been walking along the street and had threatened that he would either close the investigation or fine her if she refused to comply with the summons. At the same time I.T.A. had discouraged her from engaging a lawyer, telling her that it would be useless to do so. Furthermore, he had summoned V.C.A. to attend the police station at the same time as her, and she had had to face V.C.A. there – even though the applicant had specifically asked I.TA. to summon V.C.A. at a different time and had told him that V.C.A. continued to scare her. In addition, I.TA. had repeatedly tried during the interview of August 2018 to persuade the applicant to withdraw her complaint by telling her that her complaint was doomed to fail in court. 20 .     The applicant argued that I.T.A. had lacked impartiality and had acted unprofessionally (given her very delicate psychological state), and that his conduct had scared her and had caused her to suffer from insomnia. 21 .     On 14 December 2018 the applicant retained a lawyer.      Online article and public protest concerning the applicant’s case 22 .     On 14 December 2018, an online publication published an article on the applicant’s case under the headline “The supreme humiliation” ( Umilinţa supremă ). It alleged, inter alia , that the applicant had been confronted in her quest for justice by the authorities’ ironic attitude ( atitudine ironică ), accusations of wrongdoing and pressure on her to withdraw her complaint. According to the article, BPS 8 had essentially refused to register the applicant’s criminal complaint, which, as indicated in the article, had been submitted on 29 October 2016, and had asked her to return two days later. The police officers had also asked the applicant to print out the nude photographs that had been disseminated online and to bring them with her, and had even suggested that she only return if accompanied by her father, so that they could be certain that her complaint was genuine. Moreover, I.T.A. had volunteered to mediate between V.C.A. and the applicant, and had encouraged her to take money offered by V.C.A. 23.     On 16 December 2018, following the publication of the article, a public protest was held in Bucharest in solidarity with the applicant.      The investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Service of the General Directorate of the Bucharest Police 24 .     On 17 December 2018 the prosecutor’s office transferred the applicant’s case from BPS 8 to the Criminal Investigation Service of the General Directorate of the Bucharest Police ( Serviciul de Investigaţii Criminale din cadrul Direcţiei Generale a Poliţiei Municipiului București – “the SIC”) on the grounds that since March 2015 the SIC had been the body with jurisdiction to investigate the offence provided by Article 226 § 2 of the CC. It also dismissed the applicant’s challenge against I.T.A. (see paragraphs   19-20 above) as irrelevant. 25.       On 11 January 2019 the SIC took a statement from the applicant in the presence of her chosen lawyer. She reiterated some of the information included in her earlier statements and in the online article concerning V.C.A.’s acts (see paragraphs 9, 11, 16 and 22 above) and repeated her request for V.C.A. to be brought to justice. Moreover, she presented the SIC with the information described in paragraph 10 above. Lastly, the applicant submitted to the SIC screenshots and recordings which allegedly contained information confirming her and the article’s (see paragraph 22 above) allegations concerning V.C.A.’s acts. 26.     On 30 and 31 January 2019 the SIC heard the testimony of three witnesses in the case, including the applicant’s brother. 27 .     On 28 February 2019 the applicant asked the prosecutor’s office to extend the criminal investigation ( extinderea urmăririi penale ) to encompass other offences, namely: (i) computer-related forgery ( fals informatic ); (ii)   harassment and incitement to harass ( hărțuire și instigare la hărțuire ); and (iii)   threatening behaviour. 28 .     On 8 April 2019 the SIC held that according to the available evidence, including the USB stick (see paragraph 11 above) that it had studied on 14   January 2019, there was a reasonable suspicion that V.C.A. had committed the offence of violation of private life. It therefore decided that the part of the criminal investigation concerning that offence (see paragraph 14 above) should be continued against V.C.A. personally (rather than in rem ). The prosecutor’s office confirmed those findings. 29.     On 23 April 2019 the SIC notified the applicant’s lawyer of its intention to interview V.C.A. on 29 April 2019. The applicant’s lawyer unsuccessfully requested that V.C.A.’s interview be rescheduled because 29   April was a public holiday (namely Easter Monday), and she could not attend the interview. 30 .     On 29 April 2019 V.C.A. reiterated his earlier statement (see paragraph   17 above) and acknowledged that he had created several fake Facebook accounts, which he had used for the purpose of disseminating the applicant’s intimate photos – including one account that had displayed the applicant’s personal information. 31.     On 9 May and 9 August 2019 the applicant’s lawyer asked the prosecutor’s office to provide her with a copy of V.C.A.’s statement, which was done on 4 September 2019. 32 .     On 3 October 2019 the applicant reiterated her request for extension of the investigation (see paragraph 27 above). On 14 November 2019 the prosecutor’s office extended the investigation against V.C.A. to encompass the offence of computer-related forgery under Article   325 of the CC. It held that, according to the available evidence, V.C.A. had unlawfully created four fake Facebook accounts and had used them to disseminate the applicant’s photographs publicly with the aim of denigrating the applicant and affecting her rights to dignity and to her own image. 33.     On 6 November 2019 the applicant complained before the Bucharest District Court (“the District Court”) regarding the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against V.C.A. and asked that the court order the relevant authorities to expedite the investigation. 34 .     By an interlocutory judgment of 27 November 2019 that was not amenable to appeal, the District Court acknowledged that the length of the investigation had been excessive and ordered the prosecutor’s office to conclude it within four months of it being notified of the court’s judgment (3   December 2019). It found that the investigating authorities had for no reason remained inactive from 14 June 2017 until 9 May 2018, from 22   August 2018 until 11 January 2019, and from 29 April until 14   November 2019. It held that the case was not complex and that the authorities had not faced any notable difficulties in carrying out the necessary procedural acts. In addition, both the applicant and V.C.A. had responded to the investigating authorities’ requests and had conducted themselves appropriately. Furthermore, there had been no legislative changes affecting the investigation, and the relevant authorities had not argued that they were overloaded with work. 35.     On 9 December 2019 the prosecutor’s office ordered the SIC to notify V.C.A. of its decision of 14 November 2019 (see paragraph 32 above) and to examine him as a suspect in respect of the offence in question.   On 10   January 2020 the SIC heard V.C.A. who reiterated his statement of 29 April 2019 (see paragraph   30 above).      The termination of the investigation    The SIC proposal 36 .     On 15 January 2020, the SIC proposed that the investigation against V.C.A. in respect of the offence of violation of private life be closed ( clasată ) because his alleged acts had not constituted an offence under criminal law, since the applicant had sent him her intimate photographs willingly. It further proposed that the investigation against V.C.A. in respect of the offence of computer-related forgery be dropped ( renunțare la urmărirea penală ) because there was no public interest in pursuing the investigation. It proposed that V.C.A. be ordered to apologise publicly to the applicant and to perform unpaid community work for a total of sixty days.    The decision of the prosecutor’s office of 10 June 2020 37 .     On 10 June 2020 the prosecutor’s office accepted the SIC’s above ‑ noted proposal (see paragraph 36 above) and held that the investigation should be closed in so far as the offences of harassment and threatening behaviour were concerned because the constituent elements of the offence of harassment had not been present in the applicant’s case and because, in any event, the statutory limitation period ( prescripţia ) in respect of the two offences had already expired. 38.     As to the offence of violation of private life, it held that V.C.A. had obtained the applicant’s intimate photographs lawfully and that the essential constituent element of that offence had therefore not been present. 39 .     As to the offence of computer-related forgery, it held that it was beyond doubt that V.C.A.’s conduct had been reprehensible and that it had been characterised by a certain degree of social danger ( pericol social ), since it had entailed a risk that the applicant would be subjected to a certain degree of psychological trauma. Nevertheless, according to the available evidence, the criminal investigation could be dropped for the following specific reasons. 40.     The prosecutor’s office stated that the above proposal would be beneficial to the applicant. It took the view that indicting V.C.A. could prolong the proceedings and force the applicant to relive her negative experiences of 2016, given that during a trial some of the available evidence might be re-examined and new evidence might be collected. It considered that in such circumstances the applicant could experience again or even feel an aggravation of the state of anxiety that she had (according to her) felt when she had been interviewed by the investigating authorities. 41.     Moreover, given the facts of the case, V.C.A.’s indictment had constituted an excessive “penalisation”, which had gone against the subdued and exceptional role that criminal proceedings generally played in forming, developing and educating youngsters. It pointed to the fact that at the time of the events in question V.C.A. and the applicant had been students who had not had much life experience and who had been prone to act instinctively rather than rationally, spurred by the desire to experience age-specific sexual experiences. 42 .     Furthermore, by choosing to regularly send V.C.A. photographs of herself in “indecent poses” the applicant herself had contributed substantially to transforming her relationship with him into one that had been “centred on an exacerbated sexuality ( sexualitate exacerbată )”. 43 .     Also, V.C.A. had had a rather childish aim in committing the acts in dispute – namely, vengeance motivated by jealousy – and that he had been prompted to act in such a manner by a cumulation of factors (including his young age and lack of experience). 44 .     The applicant had barely responded to the investigating authorities’ initial summonses to give a statement in respect of the case – even though her clarifying the details of her grievance had been essential for the initiation and conduct of an effective and speedy investigation (given that some of the evidence had been stored online or on computers). By contrast, once the applicant and her legal representative had clarified all the accusations levelled against V.C.A., the latter had appeared before the relevant authorities each time that he had been summoned, had acknowledged his acts and had cooperated with the investigators. 45 .     The prosecutor’s office concluded that given the circumstances, its proposed solution (see paragraphs 36-37 above) constituted sufficient punishment for V.C.A. and fair compensation for the applicant from the standpoint of criminal law.    Judicial finding regarding the allegations of computer-related forgery 46 .     By an interlocutory judgment of 30 July 2020 that was not amenable to appeal, the District Court, sitting as a single pre-trial judge (namely, C.B.), confirmed the prosecutor’s office’s decision in respect of the offence of computer-related forgery (see paragraphs 36-37 above) following a request by the said office. It held that the prosecutor’s office had interpreted and applied correctly the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure that allowed for the criminal investigation to be dropped.      The applicant’s challenge lodged with the senior prosecutor in respect of the decision of the prosecutor’s office of 10 June 2020 47 .     On 3 July 2020 the applicant challenged the decision of 10 June 2020 before the senior prosecutor attached to the prosecutor’s office (“the senior prosecutor”). She submitted that that decision had not been served on her and that her challenge was based on excerpts thereof that had been cited by the press. She had therefore been unable to lodge a duly reasoned challenge. 48.     Moreover, the finding of the prosecutor’s office that V.C.A. had had a rather childish aim in committing the acts in question supported a narrative to which the investigating authorities had subscribed throughout the investigation – namely, that the person actually responsible for the dissemination of her intimate photos had in fact been her. 49 .     Furthermore, the findings of the prosecutor’s office concerning her conduct during the investigation had been irrelevant and had ignored I.T.A.’s conduct towards her and the District Court’s findings described in paragraph   34 above. Also, from the moment that she had retained a lawyer she had responded to all summonses and had insisted on maintaining her complaint. 50 .     On 5 October 2020 the senior prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s challenge as ill-founded, and upheld the above-mentioned decision.      The challenge lodged by the applicant with the District Court against the decision of the prosecutor’s office of 10 June 2020 51 .     On 22 September 2020 the applicant lodged with the District Court a challenge against the decision of the prosecutor’s office of 10 June 2020, a copy of which she had obtained from V.C.A.’s lawyer, and reiterated the arguments that she had raised before the senior prosecutor (see paragraphs   47-49 above). 52 .     Subsequently, she added that the decision to close the investigation in respect of the offence of violation of private life had been unlawful because the relevant domestic doctrine and practice confirmed almost unanimously that the constituent elements of the offence under Article 226 § 2 of the CC would be deemed to have been present provided that the dissemination of the private images had been carried out in an unlawful manner – regardless of whether the images in question had been obtained lawfully or unlawfully within the meaning of Article 226 § 1. Therefore, the fact that the applicant had sent V.C.A. intimate photographs of herself willingly was irrelevant, given the fact that the photographs in question had been private at that time and that V.C.A. had disseminated them unlawfully. 53 .     Only the above-mentioned interpretation afforded practical and effective protection to a person’s private life from the perspective of a State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, as reflected by the case-law of the Court (reference was made to Rodina v. Latvia , nos.   48534/10 and 19532/15, 14 May 2020). To hold otherwise would be to essentially exclude from the sphere of application of the offence in question precisely the kind of conduct that had the most serious and visible social impact. 54 .     Also, the decision to close the investigation in respect of the offences of harassment and of threatening behaviour on the grounds that they had become time-barred had been equally unlawful. 55.     The examination of the applicant’s challenge was assigned to Judge C.B. (see paragraph 46 above). The applicant requested that he be recused arguing that C.B. had already expressed an opinion regarding the issues in dispute. 56.     By an interlocutory judgment that was not amenable to appeal, the District Court, sitting as a single judge (namely A.M.S.), dismissed the applicant’s challenge in respect of Judge C.B. as ill-founded. It found that on 30   July 2020 C.B. had not examined or expressed an opinion regarding any of the conclusions listed in the decision of the prosecutor’s office relating to the offences of harassment, threatening behaviour and violation of private life. 57 .     By an interlocutory judgment of 15 December 2020 that was not amenable to appeal, the District Court, sitting as a single judge (namely, C.B.), dismissed the applicant’s challenge against the decision of the prosecutor’s office of 10 June 2020 (see paragraphs 51-54 above). 58 .     The District Court held that the constituent elements of the offence of violation of private life had not been present because V.C.A. had not obtained intimate photographs of the applicant in an unlawful manner. She had sent the photographs in question to him willingly. The fact that V.C.A. had disseminated those photographs publicly without the applicant’s consent could have engaged at the most his civil liability if the applicant had been able to prove the damage allegedly suffered by her. 59 .     As to the offence of computer-related forgery, the District Court held that it had already examined the ruling of the prosecutor’s office in this regard in its interlocutory judgment of 30 July 2020 (see paragraph 46 above) and could therefore not examine that part of the ruling during the current proceedings. 60 .     As regards the offences of threatening behaviour and harassment, the District Court held that one of the essential conditions for both offences had not been met in the applicant’s case – namely, that V.C.A.’s acts could not have been capable of striking fear into the applicant. The District Court took the view that the fact that the applicant had been contacted by numerous individuals seeking sexual services after the dissemination of the photographs could not have brought the offence of harassment into play: at the most, this could have engaged V.C.A.’s civil liability, provided that the applicant could have proved the damage allegedly suffered by her.      The applicant’s extraordinary appeal for annulment of the District Court’s judgment of 30 July 2020 61 .     On 2 November 2020 the applicant lodged with the District Court an extraordinary appeal for annulment ( contestație în anulare ) of the interlocutory judgment of 30   July 2020 (see paragraph 46 above). She argued, inter alia , that the court had violated her right to equality of arms, because it had examined the case on 30 July 2020 without summoning the applicant in a lawful manner. 62 .     By means of an interlocutory judgment of 2 February 2021, which was not amenable to appeal, the District Court allowed the applicant’s extraordinary appeal for annulment and quashed the interlocutory judgment of 30 July 2020. It referred the case back to the prosecutor’s office and ordered it to resume the investigation in respect of the offence in question. The court essentially accepted the applicant’s argument that her right to equality of arms was violated. In addition, the District Court found that there was a reasonable suspicion that V.C.A. had committed the offence in question and disagreed with the conclusion of the prosecutor’s office that there was no public interest in pursuing the investigation against V.C.A. (see paragraphs   36-39 above). 63 .     The court held in this connection that according to his own statements, V.C.A.’s acts had been fuelled by a desire for revenge because he had felt betrayed by the applicant. His acts indicated that he was a socially dangerous person who was prepared to violate criminal-law rules in order to satisfy basic physiological urges. Also, they had demonstrated a lack of respect for extremely important social values such as those pertaining to a person’s psychological freedom and private life. V.C.A.’s acts had been aimed at defaming the applicant and her image, both publicly and within the circle of her friends and family, and that their level of seriousness had been further aggravated by the psychological damage suffered by the applicant. 64 .     The District Court could therefore not agree with the prosecutor’s office that the reasons behind V.C.A.’s acts had been childish or that the continuation of the criminal investigation against him could constitute an excessive penalty. It took the view that the acts in question had been highly dangerous given the maximum and minimum penalty provided for by law that could be imposed for the offence in dispute and that they had violated social standards that not only protected a person’s private life and image but also protected people against identity theft and fake information. 65 .     The District Court found that the statement made by the prosecutor’s office, noted in paragraph 42 above, was “incomprehensible”. It had not constituted objective grounds that could have been relied on for an assessment of whether a criminal investigation should have been dropped or not. 66 .     As to the argument of the prosecutor’s office that the applicant had barely responded to the authorities’ initial invitations to give a statement in respect of the case, the District Court held that the applicant’s reluctance to answer telephone calls from unknown numbers had been pardonable given that at the time she had been constantly harassed by a large number of calls and messages received from unknown individuals looking for sexual services. The District Court took the view that the applicant’s conduct had been equally understandable – even assuming that it could be said that she had intentionally avoided participating in the police interview in question – given the anxiety and possible emotional instability that she might have been suffering from because of V.C.A.’s online harassment of her.      The decision of the prosecutor’s office of 6 January 2022 concerning the offence of computer-related forgery and the applicant’s subsequent challenges 67 .     On 6 January 2022, the prosecutor’s office again closed the investigation in respect of the offence of computer-related forgery. It held that the applicant’s extraordinary appeal for annulment should have been rejected as inadmissible. Moreover, V.C.A. had complied with the obligations imposed on him by the final interlocutory judgment of 30 July 2020 (see paragraphs   36-37 and 46 above). Thus, the criminal investigation against him in respect of the offence of computer-related forgery could no longer be pursued without violating the ne bis in idem principle. 68.     On 28 February 2022, the senior prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s challenge against the above decision confirming the prosecutor office’s view that the reopening of the proceedings violated the ne bis in idem principle. 69 .     The applicant lodged with the District Court a challenge against the decisions of the prosecutor’s office of 6 January and 28 February 2022. By an interlocutory judgment of 21 July 2022 that was not amenable to appeal, the District Court found that by reviewing the interlocutory judgment of 2   February 2022, the prosecutor’s office had acted like a court – even though it had not had any authority to do so. Moreover, it had refused to follow the District Court’s instructions to resume the criminal investigation in respect of the case – even though it had been lawfully obliged to do so. Furthermore, the ne bis in idem principle could not have been violated in V.C.A.’s case by the fact that the proceedings had simply been allowed to continue. 70 .     Nevertheless, the District Court held that the criminal investigation into the offence of computer-related forgery had to be closed because the statutory limitation period in respect of the said offence had expired in November 2021.    Other information      Query by a member of parliament concerning the applicant’s case 71 .     On 18 December 2018 a member of parliament (“MP”) questioned the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of Justice about the authorities’ failure to take action in respect of the applicant’s case. The MP asked for an investigation into the online article’s allegations (see paragraph   22 above) and for swift action against those found responsible for any unlawful conduct. 72 .     On 15 and 31 January 2019 the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of Justice, respectively, responded to the MP’s query. They stated that the investigation into the applicant’s case was ongoing and that a disciplinary investigation had been opened against I.T.A.      Opinion issued by the National Council for Combating Discrimination 73 .     On 23 November 2022, following a request made by the Government, the National Council for Combating Discrimination ( Consiliul Naţional Pentru Combaterea Discriminării – CNCD) issued a guiding and non ‑ binding opinion regarding whether the statement issued by the prosecutor’s office on 10 June 2020 (see paragraph 42 above) had been discriminatory. 74 .     The CNCD found the statement in question to have been excessive and noted that the applicant, by having sent the photographs to V.C.A., had not consented to their public dissemination. The classification by the prosecutor’s office of the applicant’s poses in the photographs in question as “indecent” had constituted a subjective assertion – in the form of a personal insult. That kind of value judgment was objectionable when delivered within an institutional framework and when serving as an argument advanced in order to exonerate an alleged perpetrator. All the above-noted elements could have been subject of legal examination, possibly giving rise to civil liability in tort, that could have established whether the applicant’s rights to human dignity and to private and family life had been violated or not. 75 .     The CNCD could not conclude with certainty whether the decisive factor prompting the statement of the prosecutor office had been the applicant’s sex. It stated that, had she been male, (i) the applicant would not have benefitted from different and more advantageous treatment (under the same circumstances), and (ii) the prosecutor’s office would have likewise included the statement in question in the arguments used for its decision. The conduct of the prosecutor’s office had been generated by its subjective assessment of the applicant’s conduct during her relationship with V.C.A. rather than by the applicant’s sex.      Reports produced by the applicant’s psychologists 76 .     Two psychologists who had conducted, between February and July 2019 and from November 2022 onwards, counselling sessions with the applicant (aimed at treating problems that had been prompted by the events of 2016), produced two separate reports in respect of the applicant. 77.     The first report stated that the applicant’s self-esteem had been affected, which in turn had influenced her performance at university and her relationship with her colleagues. She had also been avoiding going to classes in order not to encounter V.C.A. 78 .     The second report stated that the applicant had been diagnosed with generalised anxiety and that the public exposure of her photographs had strongly affected her trust in people and capacity to feel safe in romantic relationships. The statement made by the prosecutor’s office (see paragraph   42 above) had contributed significantly to the worsening of the applicant’s generalised anxiety.      RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE    Domestic law and practice      Domestic law 79 .     The relevant provisions of the CC read as follows: Article 206 – Threatening behaviour “(1) The act of threatening a person with a crime or with an act prejudicial to [him or her], or to another person, if it is such as to induce fear [in the person threatened], is punishable by [a term of] imprisonment of between three months and one year, or by a fine ... (2) The [relevant] criminal [proceedings] shall be set in motion upon the injured party ... [lodging a] complaint.” Article 208 - Harassment “... (2) Making telephone calls or [undertaking] communication by means of remote transmission, which, by [their] frequency or content, induce fear in a person, is punishable by [a term of] imprisonment of between one and three months, or by a fine ... (3) The [relevant] criminal [proceedings] shall be set in motion upon the injured party ... [lodging a] complaint.” Article 226 - Violation of private life “(1) The violation of [a person’s] private life by unlawfully photographing, capturing, or recording images of, by listening to using technical means or by audio recording [that] person in [his or her] home or [own] room or an annex thereto, or a private conversation [engaged in thereby], is punishable by [a term of] imprisonment of between one and six months or by a fine. (2) The unlawful disclosure, broadcast, presentation or dissemination of the [kind of] sounds, conversations or images provided in paragraph 1 to another person or to the public is punishable by [a term of] imprisonment of between three months and two years or by a fine. (3) The [relevant] criminal [proceedings] shall be set in motion upon the injured party ... [lodging a] complaint. (4) An act provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not constitute an offence ... (a) [if it is committed] by [a person] who participated in a meeting with the injured party during which the images, conversations or sounds [in question] were captured, ... [and he or she can demonstrate that the act in question] is justified by a legitimate interest; (b) if the injured party acted explicitly with the intention of being seen or heard by the perpetrator; ...” Article 325 - Computer-related forgery “The act of unlawfully entering, altering or deleting computer data or of unlawfully restricting access to such data, resulting in inaccurate data, for the purpose of [that inauthentic data] being used to bring about legal consequences, constitutes an offence and is punishable by [a term of] imprisonment of between one and five years.” 80 .     On 17 May 2023 Parliament adopted Law no. 171/2023, which entered into force on 18 June 2023. The said Law amended and supplemented Article   226 of the CC so that it reads as follows: “(1) The violation of [a person’s] private life by unlawfully photographing, capturing ... images of ... a person in [his or her] home or [own] room or an annex thereto ... is punishable by [a term of] imprisonment of between one and six months or by a fine. (2) The unlawful disclosure ... or dissemination of the [kind of] ... images set out in paragraph 1 to another person or to the public is punishable by [a term of] imprisonment of between three months and two years or by a fine. (2 1 ) The disclosure ... or dissemination, by any means, of an intimate picture of a person identified or identifiable through the information provided, without [that] person’s consent, [which is] capable of causing to the person [in question] ... mental suffering or damage to [his or her public] image, is punishable by [a term of] imprisonment of between six months and three years or by a fine. (2 2 ) [The term] “intimate picture” ... is understood [to mean] any reproduction ... of an image of a nude person, which exposes completely or partially [his or her] genital organs, anal region, or pubic area or, in the case of women, breasts ... (3) The [relevant] criminal [proceedings] shall be set in motion upon the injured party ... [lodging a] complaint. (4) An act set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not constitute an offence ...