CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 36126/19 Medea PATASHURI against Georgia lodged on 3 July 2019 communicated on 18 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, the respondent State’s alleged failure to protect the applicant from domestic violence allegedly perpetrated by her ex-husband and to hold the latter sufficiently accountable for his violent acts. In particular, after their divorce in 2014 the applicant started being harassed by her ex-husband. The harassment consisted of regular insults, life threats and, occasionally, physical ill-treatment. Between 2014 and 2016, when the applicant eventually left Georgia to find shelter in the United State of America, she reported more than sixteen episodes of domestic violence to the local police. Those complaints were either left unattended or resulted in disproportionately mild sanctions against her ex-husband. For instance, by a final decision of the Supreme Court dated 3   January 2019, the applicant’s ex-husband was fined with 4,000 Georgian Laris (some 1,000 Euros) for having intentionally hit her with his car. According to the applicant, the impunity that her ex-husband has been enjoying for his violent acts is due to the fact that he is an undercover police agent. For that reason, on 21 January and 27 May 2016 she filed with the General Inspection Unit of the Ministry of the Interior complaints about the police inactivity in the face of her allegations of domestic violence, accusing a number of identifiable police officers of either acquiescence to or connivance with her ex-husband’s criminal behaviour. Those complaints were left unanswered. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have there been violations of Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention in the present case?   1.1.     In particular, were the law-enforcement authorities sufficiently aware of the danger posed to the applicant’s life and well-being on the grounds of the allegations of domestic violence? In the affirmative, did those authorities comply with their positive substantive obligations to take all necessary steps to protect the applicant, as required by Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, these provisions taken either separately or in conjunction with Article 14 (see, as a recent authority, Munteanu v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 34168/11, §§ 55-83, 26 May 2020, and Volodina v. Russia , no. 41261/17, §§ 67-133, 9 July 2019)?   1.2.     Having regard to their procedural obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, taken separately or in conjunction with Article 14, did the relevant domestic authorities conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of domestic violence and hold the alleged perpetrator sufficiently accountable for his acts?