ECHR Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Effective investigation
Investigative and procedural flaws resulting in prosecution of domestic-violence case becoming time-barred: violation
Facts – In February 2001 the applicant applied to a district court to bring a private prosecution after allegedly being beaten by her partner on five separate occasions in January and February 2001. In January 2002 the court forwarded her complaint to the public prosecutor, ordering him to start his own pre-trial criminal investigation; the applicant’s partner was then charged with systematically causing the applicant minor bodily harm. The investigation was twice halted by police investigators for lack of evidence, but on each occasion was reopened on appeal on the grounds that it had not been sufficiently thorough. The public prosecutor discontinued the investigation in June 2005 as a legislative reform in May 2003 meant that prosecutions in respect of minor bodily harm now had to be brought by the victim privately unless the case was of public interest or the victim could not protect her rights through a private prosecution. The district court upheld that decision. When the applicant lodged a new request to bring a private prosecution, this was refused without examination of the merits as the prosecution had become time-barred.
Law – Article 3: The applicant had suffered ill-treatment that was sufficiently serious to reach the minimum level of severity required to engage the Government’s positive obligation under Article 3. In reaching that conclusion, the Court took into account the physical injuries sustained by the applicant (in the form of bruising and scrapes to the face and body), the aggravating circumstance that the violence had continued over a period of time with five episodes within a month, and the feelings of fear and helplessness to which the applicant had been subjected. On this latter point, it noted that the psychological impact was an important aspect of domestic violence.
The Court went on to examine whether the domestic legal system, and in particular the applicable criminal law, had failed to provide practical and effective protection of the rights guaranteed by Article 3. The Court was satisfied that at the material time Lithuanian law provided a sufficient regulatory framework in that it was a criminal offence to cause minor bodily harm. Although after 1 May 2003 such offences could only be prosecuted on a complaint by the victim, who in turn became the private prosecutor, the public prosecutor nevertheless retained the right to open a criminal investigation if the offence was of public importance or the victim was unable to protect his or her interests.
As to the manner in which the law was implemented in the applicant’s case, the applicant had contacted the district court almost immediately with a view to bringing a private prosecution and had provided specific descriptions of each incident and the names of witnesses. While the authorities had initially acted without undue delay, the case was transferred to a public prosecutor after the applicant’s partner repeatedly failed to appear at court. Thereafter, the investigation was twice discontinued for lack of evidence only to be reopened after senior prosecutors ruled that it had not been sufficiently thorough. This revealed a serious flaw on the part of the State.
Furthermore, even though the legislation had changed in May 2003, the prosecutor had decided to return the case to the applicant for private prosecution only in June 2005, two years after the legislative reform,. That decision was upheld despite the risk of the prosecution becoming time-barred and despite the fact that, even after the reform, it was still possible for the public prosecutor to pursue the investigation if it was in the public interest. As a result of that decision and even though the applicant acted without delay, her application for a private prosecution was dismissed as being out of time.
The practices at issue in the instant case and the manner in which the criminal-law mechanisms had been implemented had therefore not provided the applicant adequate protection.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also: Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, 9 June 2009, Information Note no. 120; Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, 5 March 2009, Information Note no. 117; Hajduova v. Slovakia, no. 2660/03, 30 November 2010, Information Note no. 135; Kalucza v. Hungary, no. 57693/10, 24 April 2012; and Dordevic v. Croatia, no. 41526/10, 24 July 2012, Information Note no. 154)
33234/07 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 510
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Human Rights
Cited by:
Legal Summary – Valiuliene v Lithuania ECHR 26-Mar-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.510732