CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 janvier 2022

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 14 February 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22331/20 Valerica CIONCA against Romania lodged on 21 May 2020 communicated on 28 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the State’s alleged failure to take the necessary measures to protect the applicant and to conduct an effective investigation into her allegations of domestic violence by her husband. The latest complaint against her husband, lodged by the applicant in 2015, concerned domestic violence, deprivation of liberty and threats. By the final decision of 30   October 2019 (communicated to the applicant on 28 November 2019) the Satu Mare District Court confirmed the prosecutor’s decision to close the investigation as regards the crimes of deprivation of liberty and threats with the reasoning that it had not been proved that the acts complained of had been committed by the applicant’s husband. The investigation into domestic violence continued, without any decision being issued to date. Relying on Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the State had failed to put in place adequate measures to protect her from domestic violence and to prevent the recurrence of such violence. The authorities’ failure to respond adequately and promptly to her complaints, to conduct an effective investigation and apply sanctions with a deterrent effect, had put her at a constant risk of further ill-treatment and proved their tolerance in the face of domestic violence.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the State’s positive obligations under Articles 1 and   3 of the Convention, has the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms have been applied in the present case by the domestic authorities been in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention (see Bălșan v.   Romania , no.   49645/09, §§ 59-71, 23 May 2017)? 2.     Has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in the applicant’s case on account of an alleged discrimination against women in matters concerning domestic violence (see Bălșan , cited above, §§ 72-89)?