Background
The three applicants are a Romanian mother (M.S.) and her two children — a daughter (born 2010) and a son (born 2016). After the mother initiated divorce proceedings in 2017, she alleged that the children’s father subjected all three of them to domestic violence during his contact visits. In December 2018, a forensic report documented two bruises on the daughter’s arm, and the mother filed a formal criminal complaint. When the daughter was questioned by police in March 2019 — aged eight — she disclosed what she described as sexually improper behaviour by her father, prompting prosecutors to extend the investigation to include sexual assault of a minor.
The criminal investigation proceeded at a notably slow pace over nearly five years, closing only in November 2023 with a decision not to prosecute. Along the way, two forensic psychiatric commissions examined the daughter and concluded no signs of abuse could be detected. Critically, the first commission examined the daughter in the presence of the alleged perpetrator — her father — and discounted her statements after she became visibly distressed and broke down crying during that confrontation. The second commission, noting that the father was habitually naked around his daughter, described this conduct as lacking sexual connotation and as “a habit common among less educated people.” In parallel, the social services investigated complaints regarding the son, interviewing him also in the presence of his father; despite his disclosure that his father hit him as punishment, no referral to police was made.
Domestic courts acknowledged the investigation’s excessive length on multiple occasions between 2022 and 2023, ordering the prosecutor’s office to expedite the case. The national child-protection agency separately found that social services had failed to properly evaluate the abuse allegations since 2018, launching disciplinary proceedings against several employees. The applicants brought their case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing the authorities’ response was ineffective and violated the Convention.
The Court’s Holding
The Court, sitting as a Fourth Section Committee, unanimously held that Romania violated Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention with respect to both child applicants. The Court found the criminal investigation into the daughter’s allegations neither prompt nor effective: the alleged perpetrator was not questioned until six weeks after the complaint was filed despite existing forensic evidence; he was not questioned about the sexual abuse allegations until more than a year after the victim disclosed them to police; and a psychiatric examination of the daughter was not requested until nearly a year after her disclosure. These delays were incompatible with the requirements of a prompt investigation in child abuse cases.
The Court further identified serious qualitative failures. It was particularly concerned that the daughter was examined forensically in the presence of her alleged abuser — with no explanation offered for this choice — causing her visible distress and the abandonment of her prior statements, which were then used to undermine her credibility. The second forensic report’s characterisation of a father’s repeated nudity around his daughter as culturally acceptable among “less educated people” raised serious concerns about the absence of adequate child-victim-centred training among professionals involved in criminal proceedings, contrary to Romania’s obligations under international instruments including the Lanzarote Convention.
With respect to the son, the Court found significant procedural flaws in the social services’ response: a substantial delay before he was interviewed, and an interview conducted in the presence of the alleged perpetrator despite his disclosure of corporal punishment. Social services failed to notify police after that disclosure. The Court struck the mother’s individual complaint from the list under Article 37 § 1(a), finding she had positioned herself solely as representative of her children during the proceedings. The Court awarded the daughter EUR 15,000 and the son EUR 10,000 in non-pecuniary damages.
Key Takeaways
- States violate Articles 3 and 8 when criminal investigations into child abuse are characterised by prolonged inactivity, unexplained delays in questioning the alleged perpetrator, and failure to request timely forensic examinations — even where domestic courts acknowledge the excessive length.
- Examining a child victim of alleged sexual abuse in the presence of the accused is incompatible with the State’s positive obligations; authorities must carefully weigh the necessity of any such confrontation and protect the victim from secondary victimisation, particularly where the victim is a minor.
- Forensic and social-services professionals involved in child abuse proceedings must receive adequate child-victim-centred training; reports that dismiss a child’s credibility on the basis of distress caused by confrontation with the alleged abuser, or that normalise inappropriate adult behaviour toward children, reflect systemic training deficiencies that engage State responsibility.
- A mother retaining parental authority has standing before the Court to lodge an application on behalf of her minor children, even if they do not reside with her, particularly in child abuse cases where the children might otherwise be denied effective protection of their Convention rights.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces the ECtHR’s established line of authority requiring that investigations into child abuse — and especially child sexual abuse — be conducted promptly, by trained professionals, and with procedural safeguards that protect child victims from re-traumatisation. The Court’s sharp criticism of forensic reports that questioned a child’s credibility on the basis of her distress when confronted with her alleged abuser, and that characterised a father’s nudity around his daughter as a normal cultural practice, sends a clear signal that culturally relativist or victim-blaming reasoning in official expert reports is incompatible with Convention standards.
For practitioners and policymakers, the ruling underscores that systemic failures — inadequate professional training, poor inter-agency coordination, and a failure to shield child complainants from contact with alleged perpetrators during investigative steps — can individually and collectively give rise to State liability under the Convention, even when domestic oversight mechanisms have themselves identified those failures.