CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 août 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary August 2025 M.A. v. Iceland - 59813/19 Judgment 26.8.2025 [Section II] Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for private life Failure to conduct an effective investigation into applicant’s complaints of domestic violence: violation Article 14 Discrimination Alleged gender-based discrimination in handling of domestic violence cases: no violation Facts – In December 2017 the applicant lodged a complaint with the police against her former boyfriend concerning two incidents of physical assault allegedly committed in February and July 2016, as well as a threat made against her in May 2017. Following both incidents, the applicant sought medical attention, and her injuries were documented. The applicant initially contacted the police in January 2017 but at that time did not wish to file a formal complaint. In May 2017, after learning that she had contacted the police, the former boyfriend threatened to send intimate photographs of her to her employer. The case was transferred several times between different police departments. The prosecutor sent the case back for further investigation three times noting each time that it was old, and the investigation should be conducted without delay. The applicant was questioned at a police station in March 2018 and additional questioning took place by telephone twice afterwards. In June 2018, following applicant’s emails expressing concern that the limitations might expire, the investigator responded that they would proceed with the case as soon as practicable. The former boyfriend was summoned for questioning in July 2018 but failed to appear and was ultimately questioned at the end of August 2018 when he partially admitted to having physical contact with the applicant during the July 2016 incident. According to the Government, the email exchanges suggested that the investigator’s summer leave played a part in the late questioning. Between October 2018 and March 2019, four witnesses were questioned by the police and testified to having seen injuries on the applicant following the alleged incidents. Two of them stated that they had witnessed the former boyfriend pushing the applicant against a door in July 2016. In April 2019 the police discontinued the investigation. Following the applicant’s appeal the State Prosecutor confirmed that, as the former boyfriend had not been questioned until August 2018, the two-year statute of limitations for offences under Article   217 of the General Penal Code (the “GPC”) had expired. He further found that, while her allegations were supported by evidence, Article   218b, which specifically criminalised domestic violence, could not be applied retroactively to the alleged assault of February 2016 and that the July 2016 incident alone did not satisfy the requirement of repeated or serious conduct necessary for Article   218b to apply. However, the State Prosecutor invalidated the police’s decision in respect of the alleged threat and ordered that prosecution be initiated under Article   233 of the GPC. The former boyfriend was convicted of this offence and in September 2021 the Court of Appeal noted that the fact that the threat was directed at his former cohabiting partner aggravated the seriousness of the offence. In August 2021, the National Commissioner of Police publicly apologised to the applicant and acknowledged that procedural errors had resulted in the assaults becoming time-barred. Under Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article   14, the applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into her complaints of domestic violence and that she had suffered discrimination as a woman due to the authorities’ systematic failure to effectively investigate and prosecute domestic violence. Law – Article   8: There was no need to determine whether the alleged violence had been sufficiently serious to meet the minimum level of severity required to bring it within the scope of Article   3 because, in any event, the authorities had had an identical positive obligation to protect victims of violence under Article   8. (i) Legislative framework – Although Article   218b had not been introduced into the GPC until 2016, the legal framework had already provided for enhanced punishment in domestic violence cases. Article   70(3) of the GPC had stipulated that a close relationship between the perpetrator and the victim should be considered an aggravating circumstance where the relationship increased the gravity of the offence. This provision had thus allowed for heavier penalties in domestic violence cases prosecuted under the general assault provisions of Articles   217 and 218. While requiring the criminalisation of domestic violence, the Istanbul Convention did not prescribe specific standalone offences and allowed for the inclusion of domestic violence either as a constituent element of particular offences or as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing for other offences. Insofar as criminal proceedings could be initiated ex officio , the legislative approach adopted by Iceland conformed with the relevant international standards. Articles   217 and 218 of the GPC had criminalised assault, with a two-year limitation period for less serious offences under Article   217. While a longer limitation period might arguably be considered desirable in domestic violence cases given its nature and victims’ particular vulnerabilities, the two-year period had not been, in itself, contrary to the requirements of the Convention, insofar as States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in setting limitation periods. (ii) Adequacy of the investigation (procedural limb) – The applicant had lodged her criminal complaint in December 2017 concerning events that had occurred approximately seventeen to twenty-two months before. She had been first interviewed only in March 2018. In view of the imminent expiry of the limitation period the authorities had been required to proceed with particular expedition. Had the former boyfriend been interviewed as a suspect before the end of February 2018 none of the offences would have become time barred. An interview by the end of June 2018 would, at the very least, have prevented the second alleged incident from becoming time barred. None of these measures had been taken, notwithstanding the prosecutor’s repeated instructions to expedite the case and despite the authorities’ knowledge that the applicant, who had remained in regular contact with her former boyfriend owing to shared custody, had been previously threatened over her communications with the police. Initial delays appeared to have arisen from administrative confusion, with the case being transferred between different police departments before a determination had been made as to which unit should handle the investigation. Even after the applicant had expressly raised concerns about the impending expiry of the limitation period in June 2018, it did not appear that any urgent measures had been taken to expedite the investigation. The investigator’s response that they would proceed as soon as practicable and their decision to take summer leave without arranging for a replacement appeared to have contributed to the delayed questioning of the former boyfriend and ultimately had resulted in the second assault becoming time-barred as well. That the former boyfriend had been later convicted of making threats against the applicant over her communication with the police only underscored the gravity of the authorities’ failure to ensure an effective investigation into the alleged physical violence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   14 in conjunction with Articles   3 and 8: Since the applicant had not alleged individual discriminatory treatment, the Court had to examine whether she had presented prima facie evidence of structural bias or disproportionate effect capable of shifting the burden of proof onto the Government. It was undisputed that sexual and domestic violence in Iceland predominantly affected women. The statistics presented by the applicant indicated that the vast majority of victims had been women, while most perpetrators had been men. However, this fact did not, in itself, reflect discriminatory policies or conduct by the authorities or the disproportionate effect of general measures rather than a broader societal issue. Iceland ranked highly in international gender equality assessments and had implemented numerous reforms aimed at combating sexual and domestic violence, including the legislative reforms in 2016 introducing Article   218b and the creation of specialised investigation teams in 2018. While such general measures did not preclude the possibility of discrimination in practice, they provided relevant context for determining whether apparent disparities resulted from discriminatory intent or omission. As regards the legal framework, domestic violence had not been comprehensively criminalised until 2016, but this did not in itself demonstrate either discriminatory intent or effect. The previous legal framework had nonetheless provided various protections through provisions on sexual violence, assault, threats, and gross defamation of closely related persons, as well as enhanced sentencing for assaults committed within a close relationship. The 2016 reforms reflected the authorities’ commitment to strengthening protection against domestic violence rather than any indication of discriminatory complacency. The present case did not suggest that police officers or prosecutors had attempted to dissuade the applicant from pursuing her complaint, implied that she was at fault, or displayed prejudicial attitudes towards female victims. The particular challenges in prosecuting domestic violence cases could not in themselves establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the absence of evidence of prejudicial treatment or disproportionate effect. While raising concerns about data collection that warranted attention from the authorities, the limited statistical evidence adduced by the applicant was insufficient to establish prima facie evidence of structural bias or disproportionate effect. Furthermore, the observations of international monitoring bodies, while identifying areas for improvement, did not suggest the existence of institutional attitudes or practices indicating discriminatory treatment of female victims of domestic violence. Taking also into account the various legislative and policy measures adopted by the authorities to combat sexual and domestic violence, stem impunity and protect victims, the Court found that the applicant had not sufficiently established a prima facie case of structural bias or disproportionate effect, capable of shifting the burden of proof to the State. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article   41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and claim for pecuniary damage dismissed. (See Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, the   Istanbul Convention , adopted on 11   May 2011)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .