CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBC92E636 { width:88.68%; border-collapse:collapse } .s5C1370C { width:10.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s6C6DB82A { width:36.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3BB2BBD8 { width:25.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s58EF1296 { width:27.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6CE1DDF { width:10.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC78ECEDC { width:36.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6EC9AB { width:25.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2B692D24 { width:27.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 11 May 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 20932/24 A.A. and A.A. against Greece lodged on 6 July 2024 communicated on 24 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic authorities’ response to allegations of sexual abuse and domestic violence involving two minor children, and the conduct of related criminal and civil proceedings. The applicants are twin sisters born in 2017. On 17 May 2021, their mother filed a complaint on behalf of the applicants with the Athens Public Prosecutor for Minors, alleging that the father’s business partner had sexually abused the children and requesting protective measures and a psychiatric assessment. She reported that on 21 April 2021 one daughter had described specific abusive acts. A further complaint against the father followed on 30 June 2021 by the mother on behalf of her children. During the following months, the mother repeatedly informed authorities that the children feared contact with their father and that hospitals refused examinations without a prosecutor’s order. Following the lodging of the complaints, no immediate forensic or child-friendly interview was conducted. According to the mother, the children were not afforded a gender-sensitive assessment, despite the nature of the allegations. On 16 November 2021 the Public Prosecutor issued an order appointing two child psychiatrists, whose expert reports were delivered on 5 October 2022. The Prosecutor discontinued the case on 20   November 2023 for lack of sufficient evidence. On 19 December 2023 the mother lodged an appeal. By an order dated 6 March 2024 the Prosecutor rejected the appeal. In parallel, between 2021 and 2023, civil courts issued a series of interim and provisional orders modifying custody and contact arrangements, including shared and supervised contact. At the time of the introduction of the application proceedings on parental responsibility were pending before the Athens Court of First Instance, while a prior decision of 2022 providing for shared custody and alternating residence remained in force. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the authorities failed to act promptly and effectively on the criminal complaint lodged by the mother, to provide them with a timely, child-sensitive examination, and to ensure proper coordination between the criminal investigation and the parallel civil custody proceedings. They further allege that the domestic framework and practice did not afford them adequate protection from violence or secondary victimisation. Relying on Article 14 taken together with Articles 3 and 8, they also complain of discriminatory attitudes on the basis of gender and age in the handling of the case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the positive obligations inherent in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention: (a) Did the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case meet the requirements of those provisions (see L. and Others v.   France , nos.   46949/21 and 2 others, §§ 196-99, 24 April 2025 with further references; A   and B   v.   Croatia, no. 7144/15, §§ 106-08, 20 June 2019; and R.B. v.   Estonia , no. 22597/16, §§ 79-82, 22 June 2021 )? (b) Was sufficient regard given to the applicants as minor victims of alleged sexual offences, in particular through child‑sensitive and protective measures capable of safeguarding the children’s best interests (see R.B. v.   Estonia , cited above, § 83; A and B v. Croatia , cited above, §   111; L.   and Others v.   France , cited above, § 201; and X and Others v.   Bulgaria [GC], no.   22457/16, § 192, 2 February 2021), including appropriate measures aimed at preventing further harm and avoiding secondary victimisation (see M.G. v.   Lithuania , no. 6406/21, §   115, 20   February 2024; and N.Ç. v.   Turkey , no.   40591/11, §§   132 ‑ 135, 9   February 2021)? 2.     In the particular circumstances of the case, did effective protection of the applicants’ rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention require coordination between the criminal investigation and the civil custody and contact proceedings? If so, was adequate coordination ensured in that regard? 3.     Did the domestic law and practice in force at the material time provide effective protection of the applicants from violence and abuse, as required under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see A.P. v. Armenia , no.   58737/14, §   116, 18   June 2024; X and Others v. Bulgaria , cited above, §§   179 ‑ 80; and A   and   B v. Croatia , cited above, §§ 110-12) ? 4.   Have the applicants been subjected to discriminatory treatment on grounds of gender or age in the handling of their case, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8?     APPENDIX Application no. 20932/24 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth   Nationality 1. A. A. 2017 Albanian, Greek 2. A. A. 2017 Albanian, Greek