003-3926023-4539531

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 181 (2012)   24.04.2012   Hungary failed to protect woman from abusive partner despite   repeated requests to have him evicted from their shared flat   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Kalucza v. Hungary (application   no. 57693/10), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European   Convention on Human Rights.   The Court found that the Hungarian authorities had not taken sufficient measures for   Ms Kalucza’s effective protection from her former partner’s violent behaviour, despite   criminal complaints lodged against him for assault, repeated requests for a restraining   order against him and civil proceedings to order his eviction from their flat.   Principal facts   The applicant, Matild Kalucza, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in   Budapest (Hungary). She unwillingly shares her flat with her violent partner, Gy.B.,   pending numerous civil disputes concerning the ownership of the flat.   Divorced, Ms Kalucza started a relationship with Gy.B. in April 2005. Ms Kalucza had   joint ownership of a flat with her ex-husband and, at the start of her relationship with   Gy.B., he decided to pay her ex-husband’s share in the flat. He officially acquired   ownership of this share in January 2006 and the flat was registered as his place of   residence in November 2006.   The couple’s relationship, involving regular mutual verbal and physical assaults,   deteriorated and ended in about January 2007.   Since that time, Gy.B. has continued to stay in the jointly owned flat against   Ms Kalucza’s wishes and their disputes still take place. She has requested the help of the   authorities on numerous occasions, lodging criminal complaints for rape, assault and   harassment. On four occasions, Gy.B. was acquitted of the charges. On five occasions   the proceedings were discontinued as Ms Kalucza did not wish to continue them or failed   to prosecute privately. On two occasions Gy.B. was found guilty of assault, released on   parole and ordered to pay a fine. On three occasions Ms Kalucza herself was found guilty   of disorderly conduct, grievous bodily harm and assault. Criminal proceedings for   trespassing brought by Gy.B. are currently pending against her because she had the   flat’s locks changed.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   During these criminal proceedings, Ms Kalucza also made two requests for a restraining   order to be brought against Gy.B.. Her first request, made in June 2008, was dismissed   by the courts in January 2010 on the ground that both parties were responsible for their   bad relationship. Her subsequent second request was dismissed for the same reason.   There are also three sets of civil proceedings, suspended since 2007 and 2008,   concerning the flat: one set was brought by Ms Kalucza requesting that Gy.B. be ordered   to leave the flat; and, two sets concern ownership of the flat.   Between October 2005 and August 2010, 13 medical reports were drawn up which   recorded contusions mostly to Ms Kalucza’s head, face, chest and neck with an expected   healing time of eight to ten days.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 2 (right to a life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),   (right to respect of private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy),   Ms Kalucza alleged that the Hungarian authorities have failed to protect her from   constant physical and psychological abuse in her home.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 September   2010.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,   Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco),   András Sajó (Hungary),   Işıl Karakaş (Turkey),   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal),   Helen Keller (Switzerland), Judges,   and also Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 (private life)   The Court considered Ms Kalucza’s claims concerning Gy.B.’s threat to her physical   integrity in their shared flat, including the allegation that he had frequently attacked her,   to be credible. There was therefore no doubt that Ms Kalucza’s application fell within the   sphere of private life under Article 8 of the Convention. The Hungarian authorities were   therefore obliged under the Convention to take measures to protect Ms Kalucza from her   former partner’s violent behaviour in her home.   However, the Court was struck that it had taken the authorities more than one-and-half   years to decide on Ms Kalucza’s first request for a restraining order, despite the fact that   the fundamental reason behind such a measure was to provide immediate or at least   prompt protection to victims of violence. Nor had sufficient reasons been given for   dismissing the restraining order requests, the courts relying simply on the fact that both   parties were involved in the assaults. Indeed, if such a measure could not be ordered in   the event of a mutual assault, the possibility of a victim having acted in legitimate self-   defence would be ruled out and the aim of providing effective protection to victims would   be seriously undermined. Moreover, restraining orders could have been issued against   both parties.   Lastly, the courts had also failed to comply with their obligation to decide on the civil   cases concerning the flat, within a reasonable time. Notably, those proceedings are still   pending since 2007 and 2008 despite the fact that they would, in theory, eradicate the   root of the problem, namely the unwanted residence of Gy.B. in the flat.   The Court therefore found that, even though Ms Kalucza had lodged criminal complaints   against her partner for assault, had repeatedly requested restraining orders to be   brought against him and had brought civil proceedings to order his eviction from the flat,   the Hungarian authorities had not taken sufficient measures for her effective protection,   in violation of Article 8.   Other articles   Given the finding under Article 8, the Court further held that there was no need to   examine separately Ms Kalucza’s complaints under Article 2 (unanimously) or under   Articles 3 and 13 (six votes to one).   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court held that Hungary was to pay Ms Kalucza 5,150 euros (EUR) in respect of non   pecuniary damage.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3