| Applicant name | Z. |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | CZECH REPUBLIC |
| Application no. | 37782/21 |
| Date | 20/06/2024 |
| Judges | Mattias Guyomar , President , Chanturia side, Charles Ranzoni, Martin Mits, Stephanie Mourou-Vikström, Maria Elosegui, Kateřina Šimáčková |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | bodily privacy |
| Keywords | Rape; procecution |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complains of a restrictive interpretation by the authorities of the constituent elements of the offences of rape and sexual abuse provided for in Criminal Code no . 140/1961 and that this legal framework was insufficient to effectively punish the sexual offences of which she alleged she was the victim, as well as of a failure to conduct an effective investigation into her arguable allegations of sexual assault. She relies on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | The Court further notes that in this case the authorities considered that, on the basis of the new Criminal Code which came into force after the events in question, VK’s actions could have been considered to be sexual coercion; this appears to be confirmed by the relevant case-law. It follows that the authorities’ approach in the present case was not capable of guaranteeing the applicant adequate protection. The Court therefore considers that the respondent State has failed to fulfil its positive obligations, at least since the adoption of the judgment in MC v. Bulgaria (cited above) in 2003, to effectively apply a criminal justice system capable of punishing the non-consensual sexual acts alleged by the applicant. It reiterates in this regard that it is not called upon to rule on the criminal liability of the alleged assailant and that its above finding cannot therefore be interpreted as an opinion on VK’s guilt or as a call for the investigation in the present case to be reopened. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been, in the present case, a violation of the respondent State’s positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | Article 3 |
| Damage awarded | It a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement : EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros), plus any amount that may be due on this sum by way of tax, for non-pecuniary damage ; EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any amount that may be payable on this sum by the applicant by way of tax, for costs and expenses ; |
| Documents | Judgment |