CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 janvier 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } THIRD SECTION Application no. 34168/11 Rodica and Cristian MUNTEANU against Moldova lodged on 1 June 2011   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Rodica Munteanu (the first applicant), and Mr   Cristian Munteanu (the second applicant), are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1971 and 1998 respectively and live in Durleşti. They are mother and son. They are represented before the Court by Ms   D.   Străisteanu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant is married to I.M. Some three years ago he lost his job and started drinking heavily, became violent towards the applicants and sold items from the house in order to purchase alcohol. In 2007 he severely beat the first applicant, following which she was treated in a hospital for three weeks. The violence, both verbal and physical (in the form of blows and hitting with various objects) continued thereafter. The second applicant was also regularly beaten and insulted and would often go to his friends’ houses to prepare for school or simply rest from the scandals at home and avoid further violence towards him. On 18 April 2011 the first applicant asked the police to take action against I.M., who had assaulted her. The police applied a fine to her, because I.M. had called the police earlier during the week-end to complain about her insults and about beating him. The first applicant explained that she had been in the village during the week-end. In any event, it would be difficult for anyone to imagine that she could beat a man weighing 120   kilograms. After having been beaten again by I.M. on 19 April 2011, the first applicant called the police and the officer had a discussion with the aggressor. On 21 April 2011 the first applicant asked for a protection order. On 3   May 2011 the Buiucani District Court issued such an order, obliging I.M. to leave their house for 90 days and not to approach the applicants. On the same day the order was forwarded to the local police, the Buiucani Social Assistance Agency and the Buiucani Agency for the Protection of the Rights of Children. On 11 May 2011 the police officer responsible for the case informed the applicants that he had informed I.M. of the protection order on 6 May 2011 and warned him against abusing the applicants. I.M. left the house on the same day. However, the next day I.M. returned home and continued living there. The first applicant called several times the police, which discussed with I.M. but did nothing to remove him from the house. In the meantime, I.M. continued to insult the applicants and to be violent towards them. On 19 May 2011 the applicants’ lawyer asked the Buiucani prosecutor’s office to launch a criminal investigation against I.M. for acts of domestic violence and to ensure that the protection order was enforced. On 20 May 2011 the applicants’ lawyer asked the Buiucani Social Assistance Agency to examine I.M. in order to verify whether he had alcohol dependence. On 24 May 2011 the first applicant was again insulted and pushed by I.M. Having called the local police, she was allegedly told by an officer that he was tired of the applicants’ family’s problems – thus refusing her any assistance. On 25 May 2011 the first applicant was invited to the Buiucani Social Assistance Agency, where two social assistants allegedly told her to be nice to her husband and in that manner preserve their family. On 26 May 2011 the first applicant made a complaint against the two social workers for victimizing the victim of domestic violence. Another complaint was made on the same day to the Ministry of Internal Affairs about the unacceptable behaviour of the officer who had refused her assistance on 24 May 2011. I.M. continues to live in the family’s house and to act aggressively against the applicants. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the authorities tolerated the abuse on the part of I.M. and, by failing to enforce the protection order, encouraged his feeling of impunity. 2.     They further complain of discrimination against women on the part of the authorities, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 and 8 of the Convention. 3.     They finally complain that by failing to take any resolute action against I.M. the authorities allow the destruction of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 17 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities discharge their positive obligations under these provisions to protect the applicants from domestic violence and to prosecute those responsible for such violence (see, mutatis mutandis , Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, §§ 158-176, ECHR 2009)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have at their disposal effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention, in view inter alia of the apparent impossibility to enforce the protection order issued in their respect?   3.     Do the circumstances of the case disclose discriminatory treatment against the first applicant on account of her gender, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention?