| Applicant name | x |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Cyprus |
| Application no. | 40733/22 |
| Date | 27/02/2025 |
| Judges | Ivana Jelić, President, Erik Wennerström, Georgios A. Serghides, Frédéric Krenc, Alain Chablais, Artūrs Kučs, Anna Adamska-Gallant |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Positive olbigation |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; private life |
| Keywords | Gender based violance; |
| Facts of the case | Art 3 (procedural) and Art 8 • Investigative and prosecutorial authorities’ response to rape allegations fell short of the State’s positive obligation to apply relevant criminal provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution • Significant shortcomings • Re-victimisation • Applicant’s credibility assessed through prejudicial gender stereotypes and victim-blaming attitudes • Risk of creating a background of impunity discouraging trust of victims of gender-based violence in the criminal justice system despite existence of a satisfactory legislative framework • Art 34 • Applicant’s acquittal by the Supreme Court for false reporting/public mischief acknowledging various failures in the initial stages of her rape allegation not depriving her of victim status |
| Analysis | The Court observes that the present case reveals certain biases concerning women in Cyprus which impeded the effective protection of the applicant’s rights as a victim of gender-based violence and which, if not reversed, run the risk of creating a background of impunity, discouraging victims’ trust in the criminal justice system, despite the existence of a satisfactory legislative framework. Having regard to the numerous shortcomings, the Court concludes, without expressing an opinion on the suspects’ guilt, that the investigative and prosecutorial authorities’ response to the applicant’s allegations of rape in the present case fell short of the State’s positive obligation to apply the relevant criminal provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution. There has accordingly been a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, 3 |
| Damage awarded | 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: (i) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expense |
| Documents | Judgment |