CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 June 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42008/23 D.H. against Hungary lodged on 14 November 2023 communicated on 16 May 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The case concerns the authorities’ response to the applicant’s allegations of sexual abuse by a private person in State-provided housing. The applicant, a 29-year-old Ukrainian woman, arrived in Hungary in June   2022 because of the war in Ukraine. The applicant, who was diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and alcohol addiction, was issued a residence permit and placed in a caring home at Fülpösdaróc, where she was said to be in a relationship with a physically disabled Ukrainian man, O. In March 2023 she was moved to another facility in Kisléta and placed in the same house with O. In June 2023 the applicant terminated a pregnancy, with the father’s identity unknown at the time. Two weeks later, the applicant contacted the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and told them about sexual abuse by O. to which she had allegedly been exposed. On 26 June 2023 the social care provider and the regional Defence Committee in charge of the applicant’s safe housing were informed about the suspected exposure of the applicant to rape. Two days later, the service provider replied that the applicant had been known for pushing O. in his wheelchair to the village to buy alcohol. She was also rumoured to have offered sex in exchange for cigarettes and alcohol. On 27 June 2023 the manager of the Kisléta site informed the local police about the suspected sexual abuse. Two police officers, the site manager and a Ukrainian interpreter visited the applicant and interviewed her about her relationship with O. The applicant declared that she had never been assaulted or forced into sexual relations by O. or anyone else. O. was not interviewed by the police, which only noted his degree of physical disability (amputated feet). On 29 June 2023 the Nyírbátor Police rejected the criminal complaint stating that the applicant had been in a consensual sexual relationship with O., who would not have been capable to inflict sexual assault on the applicant due to his disability. The applicant, represented by the Helsinki Committee, appealed stating that she feared O. who was frequently drunk and unpredictable, shouting at her and forcing her to sexual intercourse. Her appeal was dismissed by the Nyírbátor District Prosecutor’s Office on 17   July   2023. Following a subsequent intervention of the UNHCR, the applicant was relocated to a shelter for abused women at Mosonmagyaróvár on 12   October 2023. A second psychiatric evaluation made on 06   November 2023 concluded that she suffered from bipolar affective disorder and an unspecified personality disorder. The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that the authorities failed to place her in a safe environment and to protect her from sexual abuse allegedly inflicted by O. She further complains, under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention, that the authorities did not carry out an effective investigation into her allegations of sexual abuse by O. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the State authorities complied with their positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention to protect the applicant from alleged sexual abuse by O. (see X and Others v. Bulgaria   [GC], no.   22457/16, § 178, 2   February 2021; De Giorgi v. Italy , no. 23735/19, §§ 68-70, 16 June 2022)?   2.     Did the State authorities conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of sexual abuse by O. in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article   3 of the Convention (see X and Others v.   Bulgaria , cited above, § 178; M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, § 177, ECHR   2003-XII; I.C. v. Romania , no. 36934/08, §§   51 ‑ 52, 24 May 2016)?