41192/22

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF G.R.N. v. ROMANIA (Application no. 41192/22)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 August 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of G.R.N. v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Faris Vehabović, President,  Lorraine Schembri Orland,  Sebastian Răduleţu, judges, and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 41192/22) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 August 2022 by a Romanian national, G.R.N. (“the applicant”), who was born in 2001 and lives in Târgu Mureș, and was represented by Mr V. Gorea, a lawyer practising in Târgu-Mureș; the decision to give notice of the application to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the decision not to disclose the applicant’s name; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The application concerns the alleged lack of effectiveness of a criminal investigation into domestic violence inflicted on the applicant, aged 15 at the time, who suffers from a psychomotor disability and has been registered as a “severely disabled person necessitating a personal assistant” since October 2016. 2.  On 23 February 2017, the applicant was allegedly aggressed by V., his mother’s partner, when he was home alone with V. According to a forensic certificate issued on 7 March 2017, issued by the Institute of Forensic Medicine of Târgu-Mureș, the applicant was diagnosed with a nasal bone fracture requiring twelve to fourteen days of medical care, the forensic medical certificate indicating that it might have been caused by blunt force trauma. 3.  On 21 March 2017, the applicant’s mother lodged a criminal complaint against V., claiming that the latter had also assaulted the applicant. A criminal investigation was immediately started in that regard. 4.  On 18 May 2017, the applicant, assisted by his mother, was scheduled to give a statement concerning the events of 23 February 2017. However, on account of the applicant’s medical condition, officers conducting the criminal investigation were unsuccessful in communicating with the applicant and were therefore unable to receive a statement from G.R.N. “as he was only communicating non-verbally” (“nu a reușit să comunice, doar prin semne”). The applicant was also assisted by a court-appointed lawyer. 5.  On 31 July 2017, the criminal investigation was discontinued for lack of evidence against V. 6.  On 27 November 2017, the Târgu Mureș Court of First Instance allowed an appeal by the applicant’s mother and ordered the reopening of the criminal investigation with regard to the allegations concerning the violence inflicted on the applicant. 7.  After the reopening of the investigation, on 27 February 2019, the applicant was heard by the case prosecutor, while a psychologist employed by Târgu Mureș Child Protective Services was also present. The applicant was also assisted by his mother and by a lawyer chosen by the applicant’s mother. 8.  On 4 March 2019, V. was questioned by officers of the Târgu Mureș Police Inspectorate who were conducting the criminal investigation. 9.  On 29 November 2019, the criminal investigation was discontinued again for lack of evidence. 10.  On 2 July 2020, the pre-trial judge of the Târgu Mureș First Instance Court ordered the reopening of the criminal investigation concerning the allegations of domestic violence, given that no explanation had been provided as regards the cause of the injury found on the applicant, as indicated in the forensic medical certificate. The judge indicated further evidence to be administered by the investigative bodies. 11.  The criminal investigation was reopened and, on 4 August 2020, V. was indicted for the offence of domestic violence. 12.  On 9 December 2020 and 3 December 2021, V. was questioned by the prosecutor in charge of the investigation. 13.  On 22 March 2021, the investigators requested that the applicant be subjected to a forensic psychologic evaluation in order to determine his ability to accurately perceive the circumstances he was in and to provide accurate information on the events of 23 February 2017. 14.  On 29 March 2021, the results of the forensic psychologic evaluation were forwarded to the investigators. According to the report, V. had been violent towards the applicant on several occasions, but his mother had defended him. The applicant had then recounted the events that had taken place on 23 February 2017. According to the report, the applicant had shown symptoms that he was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, which was found to have a direct connection with the figure of V. 15.  On 13 December 2021, an indirect witness who did not confirm the applicant’s allegations was heard by the investigators. 16.  On 3 January 2022, the investigation was discontinued for a third time for lack of evidence, as the investigating authorities gave prevalence to the presumption of innocence and the in dubio pro reo principle with respect to V. 17.  An appeal by the applicant against the prosecutor’s decision was dismissed by a final interlocutory judgment of 21 April 2022 delivered by the pre-trial judge of the Târgu Mureș First Instance Court, who found that there was no direct evidence, that there were contradictions in the applicant’s mother’s statements, that there was the possibility that she had prompted the applicant’s statements and that the applicant might have hurt himself. 18.  The applicant alleged a breach of Articles 6, 14 and 17 of the Convention, complaining that the authorities had not promptly and effectively investigated the assault of which he had been a victim. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 19.  Since the Court is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114, 124 and 126, 20 March 2018), it will examine the application under Article 3 of the Convention. 20.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 21.  The general principles concerning States’ positive obligation under Article 3 to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals, have been summarised in Z and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V) and M. and C. v. Romania (no. 29032/04, § 107, 27 September 2011). The general principles relating to the procedural obligation incumbent on national authorities under Article 3 of the Convention have been summarised in S.M. v. Croatia ([GC] no. 60561/14, §§ 308-20, 25 June 2020, with further references). 22.  The Court notes that the domestic investigation into the injuries inflicted on the applicant, a boy, aged 15, who suffered from severe disabilities (see paragraph 1 above), were conducted from March 2017 to April 2022, that is, over more than five years, while a judge decided twice to send the case back to the prosecutor because of various omissions in the investigation (see paragraphs 6 and 10 above). Moreover, the alleged perpetrator, a person living with the applicant and his mother at the time when the applicant was injured, was questioned by the investigators on 4 March 2019 (see paragraph 8 above), that is, two years after the criminal complaint had been lodged, despite the forensic evidence of serious injuries suffered by the applicant (see paragraph 2 above). 23.  With respect to measures concerning the investigating authorities put in place in criminal procedures involving domestic violence inflicted on children, with the aim of ensuring that the child’s best interests were taken into account (see, mutatis mutandis N.Ç. v. Turkey, no. 40591/11, §§ 132-35, 9 February 2021), the Government referred to the common methodology issued in 2014 by the Ministry of the Interior and the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice on handling criminal complaints and coordinating criminal investigations carried out by the judicial police and prosecutors. In accordance with this methodology, complaints regarding offences against children were considered special and urgent cases. The methodology provided for tight deadlines for the registration of the complaint and for the decision to open a criminal investigation. Accelerated procedures were required and the investigations had to be finalised within a reasonable time, within one year. 24.  Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the length of the investigation is in stark contrast to the methodology referred to by the Government. It was only on 22 March 2021, that is, more than four years after the facts and after the investigation had been opened for the third time following a pre-trial judge’s decision (see paragraph 9 above), that criminal investigating authorities requested that the applicant be subjected to a forensic psychologic evaluation (see paragraph 13 above). 25.  On the basis of the evidence before it and, notably, of the deficiencies of the domestic investigation, the Court concludes that the investigation was neither prompt nor effective and it was not conducted with the diligence required in criminal cases concerning child victims. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 26.  The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 27.  The Government considered that the finding of a violation would constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. 28.  The Court awards the applicant EUR 20,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 29.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 500 for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)  EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)  EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Valentin Nicolescu Faris Vehabović  Acting Deputy Registrar President