| Applicant name | X |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Freece |
| Application no. | 38588/21 |
| Date | 13/02/2024 |
| Judges | Pere Pastor Vilanova, President, Jolien Schukking, Yonko Grozev, Darian Pavli, Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd, Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; bodily privacy |
| Keywords | Rape; positive obligation |
| Facts of the case | The application concerns the applicant’s allegations that the national authorities did not comply with their positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation and criminal proceedings into her allegations of rape while protecting her rights as a victim of gender-based violence. |
| Analysis | The Court is satisfied that there exists an adequate legal and regulatory framework in Greece which is relevant to the specific circumstances of the present case. However, it is of the opinion that the authorities did not apply it in practice by conducting an effective investigation. The intimate nature of the subject matter, the applicant’s young age and the fact that she claimed to have been raped while on holiday in a foreign country were points of particular sensitivity which called for a correspondingly sensitive approach on the part of the authorities. Following the submission of the applicant’s complaint, the investigating authorities did not take measures to prevent her further traumatisation and did not take sufficient account of her needs. They did not take any measures to inform her of her rights as a victim, such as the right to legal assistance or counselling and psychological support, the right to receive information and the right to object to the interpretation. Furthermore, the investigating authorities did not take adequate measures to mitigate what was clearly a distressing experience for the applicant, such as the interview, the direct confrontation with the accused, the identification procedure and the medical examination, which should have been subject to more careful assessment. In addition, neither the prosecution nor the court analysed the circumstances of the case from the perspective of gender-based violence. |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, 3 |
| Damage awarded | Dismisses the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. |
| Documents | Judgment |