CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2025

.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 31 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25188/22 F.K. against Türkiye lodged on 6 May 2022 communicated on 12 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to provide an adequate and effective response to the applicant, who was subjected to psychological violence by her husband during divorce proceedings. Before the Istanbul 15th Family Court, which also handled the divorce proceedings, the applicant complained several times that her husband had been insulting and threatening her by sending hundreds of text messages and had menaced to publish intimate images of her online. She also lodged a criminal complaint against him on the grounds of insult and threat. The family court issued a barring and protection order (“protection order”) on 26   December 2019 for four months and renewed it on 26   February, 26   June and 15 September 2020. However, it failed to notify the husband in due time, and also made mistakes concerning the adoption dates of the first, second and third protection order. It transpires from the case file that the husband was only notified of the exact period of the protection orders after they had already expired. According to the applicant, this rendered them ineffective because the courts refused to impose the relevant sanctions for breach of those orders as the applicant’s husband was not properly notified. The applicant further submits in that connection that the domestic courts failed to take account of the fact that her husband was actually aware of the content and period of the orders in question since he mentioned them himself in the SMS messages he sent to the applicant. Moreover, and despite the applicant’s requests, the first protection order failed to cover acts of harassment via means of communication. In addition, the applicant repeatedly complained before the family court about her husband’s harassing acts and requested disciplinary imprisonment for breach of the protection orders. The family court rejected the applicant’s request to resolve the matter based on the parties’ written submissions and instead scheduled a hearing to be held some five months later. During the hearing, it refused to impose any sanction on the husband finding that the impugned acts took place during the term of the first protection order, which did not cover harassment via means of communication, and in any case before the notification of the subsequent orders with accurate dates. On 8 November 2021 the Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s complaints concerning the proceedings before the family court, particularly those linked to the protection orders, under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and declared them inadmissible in a summary fashion. In the meantime, the criminal courts also acquitted the applicant’s husband of the charges of threat, but imposed a judicial fine for insulting the applicant. It appears that the criminal proceedings were still pending at the time of lodging of the present application. Relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic authorities have failed to act in accordance with their positive obligations to protect her right to private and family life and psychological and moral integrity. Furthermore, she claims that the alleged failure of the domestic authorities constitutes a continuing interference with the exercise of her rights in question as her husband still continues to harass her and her family. Moreover, she complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the family court has failed to render a reasoned decision responding to her claims concerning the alleged breach of the protection order. In that connection, she further claims that the proceedings before the family court concerning the adoption and application of the protection orders do not constitute an effective remedy for her complaints under Articles   3 and   8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, she complains under Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 3, 6 and   8 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ failure to respond to her repeated complaints of an alleged breach of the protection order amounted to discrimination on the basis of her gender. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of this case disclose a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Buturugă v. Romania , no.   56867/15, §§   60 ‑ 62, 11   February 2020, and Tunikova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   55974/16 and   3   others, § 75 and § 95, 14 December 2021)?   In that connection, did the domestic judicial authorities provide an adequate and effective protection to the applicant for the psychological violence she had been subjected to by her husband? In particular:   (a)     As regards the manner in which the authorities have responded to the applicant’s requests to adopt and prolong the protection orders and her complaints concerning the alleged breach of the protection orders, could the overall approach of the judicial authorities be considered to be compatible with their positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention?   (b)     What is the difference between the scope of the protection and barring orders under section 5 § 1 (a) ( to refrain from engaging in any behaviour, including threatening, insulting, humiliating the protected person ) and section   5 § 1 (f) ( not to harass the protected person via communication channels ) of Law no. 6284? In that connection, would the fact that harassment and spamming containing insults and/or threats against a protected person is carried out through communication channels prevent section 5 § 1 (a) from covering that situation, and is there a need under domestic law for an order issued specifically under section 5 § 1 (f)?   (c)     Did the authorities act in a timely, proactive and effective manner in implementing the protection orders in view of the delay between the adoption of the orders and their notification to the applicant’s husband?   (d)     Is there a legal obligation under Law no. 6284 to hold a hearing with a view to determining whether a protective order has been breached? If so, and having regard to the fact that the family court set a hearing date five months after the applicant’s complaints and held four hearings to determine the matter, was the implementation and enforcement of the protective orders effective in practice?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints under Articles 3 and 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Mitovi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 53565/13, §§ 71-72, 16 April 2015)?