CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 19 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34426/20 T.M.V. against Romania lodged on 5 August 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the effectiveness of the measures taken by the authorities, in particular the investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse committed against the applicant by her father. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention about the effectiveness of that investigation and about the authorities’ response to the allegations of sexual abuse. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities (which ended with the final decision no.   3693 adopted by the Baia Mare District Court on 17   October 2019 and made available on 3 December 2019) in breach of 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 applicant’s right to respect for her 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, K.U. v. Finland , no.   2872/02, §§   42-43, ECHR 2008, and M. and M. v.   Croatia , cited above, §   154)?