CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 février 2024

.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 } Published on 11 March 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9665/23 C.I.T. and C.S.T. against Romania lodged on 17 February 2023 communicated on 22 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the State’s positive obligations to protect the applicants, mother (the first applicant) and son (the second applicant), from the alleged domestic violence (physical towards the mother and physical and psychological towards the child), perpetrated by P.A.P., the child’s estranged father (the mother’s former partner), when he attempted contact with the applicants. The first applicant lodged a request for a protection order against P.A.P. on her behalf and on behalf of her son (Law no. 217/2003 on preventing and combatting domestic violence). She explained, both in her original application and in the appeal against the first-instance judgment, that on 5   September 2022, P.A.P., who had not seen the child for four years, had come to the opening of the school year celebrations, had taken the second applicant in his arms and then hit the first applicant on her head and ear. From 7 to 9   September 2022, P.A.P. had allegedly followed the second applicant on his way from school and had tried to initiate contact and grab him by force despite him being almost a stranger to the child. She asserted that P.A.P. had been violent towards her before, in 2018, when, during P.A.P.’s visit from the United States of America where he lived since 2017, the applicants had spent summer holidays together with him; the criminal complaint she had lodged against him concerning that incident had been dismissed for lack of public interest in pursuing the prosecution (final decision of 8 April 2021 of the Iaşi District Court). The first applicant requested that the child undergo a psychological assessment and presented a psychological report of 19 May 2021 done at her request, whereby the psychologist had observed that the second applicant had developed fear and emotional instability because of the father’s attitude towards him and had recommended counselling for the child – to avoid the risk of psychiatric troubles, and for the parents – to reach better communication and co-parenting. On 26 September 2022 the Iaşi District Court dismissed the request for a protection order, on the grounds that P.A.P.’s attitude did not create a danger for the first applicant’s life or physical integrity or for the second applicant’s psychological security. As for P.A.P.’s behaviour towards the second applicant, the court considered that it was normal for a non-custodian parent to be insistent that he sees his child at school. That decision was upheld by a final decision of 18   October 2022 of the Iaşi County Court. Relying on Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the authorities’ response to the threat of domestic violence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the authorities complied with their positive obligations enshrined in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention to protect the applicants from domestic violence? In particular: (a)     Is the system put in place, notably by the Criminal Code and Law no.   217/2003 on preventing and combatting domestic violence, sufficient to allow protection of victims and prevention of further acts of domestic violence? (b)     Have the courts properly assessed the risk of physical and psychological violence against the applicants, and the need to protect them, in the proceedings concerning the request for a protection order (final decision of 18 October 2022 of the Iaşi County Court)? (c)     Have the authorities taken the appropriate operational measures to protect the applicants from the threat of new acts of domestic violence by P.A.P.?