CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2021

.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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s72C7619D { width:7.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE560311C { width:19.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9DB76E8E { width:33.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBC42F38E { width:7.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B103A6C { width:19.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5C35723F { width:33.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 1 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 1455/20 A. Ö . and H.Ö. against Romania lodged on 18 February 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the authorities’ alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations that A.Ö. (the first applicant) had been sexually abused at the age of thirteen in a private residential care home. The second applicant, H.Ö., who is the father of the first applicant and was in detention at the time of the events, also alleges that he had not been provided with sufficient information about the progress of the criminal proceedings causing him deep distress and anxiety. Both applicants allege that their vulnerable situation (first applicant being in a care home without her parents and second applicant being imprisoned) have not been taken into consideration by the authorities in the conduct of the investigation into their allegations of sexual abuse of the first applicant. They also allege that the shortcomings in the investigation were due to their Roma ethnic origin.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the positive obligations of States inherent in Article   3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation and prosecution of acts of sexual abuse, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of the above-mentioned Article as regards the first applicant (see I.C. v. Romania , no. 36934/08, 24   May 2016)?   2.     Can the second applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of Article   3 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34, on account of the conduct of the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium , no. 13178/03, § 61, ECHR 2006 ‑ XI and Luluyev and Others v. Russia , no. 69480/01, § 110-13, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIII (extracts)?   If so, has there been a violation of the second applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     In the course of the investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment, have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their Roma ethnic origin (see Stoica v. Romania , no.   42722/02, §§   111, 117, 118 and 128, 4 March 2008)? APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 A.Ö. 2005 Romanian Ghimbav 2 H.Ö. 1978 Romanian Miercurea-Ciuc