CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 14 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40228/20 Albert Mihai GHIȘOIU against Romania lodged on 24 August 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations that the authorities did not appropriately respond to the complaint of domestic violence lodged by the applicant, represented by his father, against the applicant’s stepfather (the current husband of his mother). The applicant’s parents have divorced in 2013; ever since, the applicant lived with his father, who had full custody of him, while the mother, who moved to France where she had started a new family, had visitation rights. During the winter holidays of 2016 the applicant, who was ten years old at the time, spent a few days in Romania with his mother and her current husband, T.R., of French nationality. Upon his return from the holidays, the applicant complained to his father that T.R. had slapped him and yelled at him. The criminal complaint lodged by the applicant on 17 February 2017 relating to the impugned incident was dismissed by the domestic authorities, the proceedings being terminated on 26 May 2020; the Pitești First-Instance Court confirmed the prosecutor’s decision not to initiate criminal proceedings against T.R. in so far as there was not sufficient evidence to confirm the allegations. The applicant relied on Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention, indicating that throughout the proceedings, neither T.R., nor his mother were ever heard by the authorities; he also complained that the Social services for Child protection had not been consulted or involved in the procedure, which in any event lasted excessively long. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, notably in the context of domestic violence against children (see D.M.D. v. Romania , no. 23022/13, §§ 40-41 and 51, 3 October 2017), was the investigation in the present case in breach of Article   3 and/or   8 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities paid sufficient attention to the allegations of domestic violence inflicted on the applicant by his stepfather, T.R.?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, with regard to the manner in which the authorities responded to the allegations of domestic violence (see Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 3564/11, §§   72 ‑ 73, 28   May 2013)?