The Republic of Moldova lost a case concerning domestic violence at the European Court of Human Rights. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the Republic of Moldova was to pay the applicant €14,250 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €3,840 in respect of costs and expenses., IPN reports.
According to Promo-LEX Association, which represented the female applicant at the ECHR, the case concerned allegations that the authorities had failed to protect the woman from domestic violence – which on one occasion had led to eight days’ hospitalization – and to help her maintain her relationship with her children when domestic violence proceedings had been initiated and they had left to live with their father.
From about 2015, following their return to Moldova, her husband A.I. subjected her to several incidents of physical abuse, verbal abuse, harassment and emotional abuse. In August 2016 a protection order for her and the children was issued, stating that A.I. had to refrain from contact with them. However, she later alleged to the police that he had broken the terms. No investigation was opened. When she sought an extension of the protection order, including submitting that A.I. had cut off her water supply, the national courts rejected the application. In November of that year A.I. attacked the woman, causing bruising all over her body including her head. A protection order was again rejected.
On appeal, the Chisinau Court of Appeal concluded that she had not been subjected to physical or psychological violence. In the meantime, in July 2016, the woman made a criminal complaint against A.I., alleging physical abuse. He was given an administrative fine by the police, but no investigation was opened at that time. Investigations into two other allegations against A.I. by the woman – including domestic violence – were opened at a later stage, with A.I. ultimately being convicted and given a suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay damages. In August 2016 the woman’s children moved in with A.I. and contact ceased. She sought help, but the child-protection authority refused to issue a contact schedule. She went to the courts and obtained a contact-schedule order, but allegedly A.I. refused to abide by it.
The Court found in particular that the authorities had not acted sufficiently to help her maintain contact; that they had failed to investigate her allegations of domestic violence; and that they had not done so owing to their prejudice against women in her situation.
