CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 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 22 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31096/23 S.G. against Slovakia lodged on 3 August 2023 communicated on 2 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure to effectively investigate and prosecute non-consensual sexual intercourse between the applicant and M.P. from September until December 2021 and the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to impose a proportionate sentence on him. After the applicant terminated her relationship with M.P., he began sending her messages, stalking her and threatening her and her family. He also showed her a sex tape that he had recorded without her consent and threatened to publish it, unless she agreed to have sexual intercourse with him – initially twice a month, later once a week. The applicant complied with M.P.’s demands but made it clear to him that for her the acts constituted coercive sex. It appears that in December 2021 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint. On 20 December 2022, the Kosice I District Court approved a plea bargain between M.P. and the Public Prosecution Service. As part of the plea bargain, M.P. confessed to all charges, including coercing the applicant into sexual intercourse. He was found guilty of dangerous pursuit (“ nebezpečné prenasledovanie ”) and extortion (“ vydieranie ”) and was sentenced to sixteen months’ imprisonment, suspended for twenty-four months. The court did not adjudicate the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damages and referred her to civil proceedings for its determination. The judgment was not amenable to an appeal or an ordinary appeal on points of law. On 22 June 2023, the Ministry of Justice dismissed the applicant’s petition for an extraordinary appeal on points of law. However, it acknowledged that the legal qualification of the offences was incorrect as the facts clearly indicated that the offences had been committed with a sexual motive. On 16   March 2023, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint, stating that the definition and legal qualification of criminal offences fall within the discretion of the law-enforcement authorities and the applicant had no right to demand the application of a specific legal qualification (file no. III. ÚS 129/2023). Relying on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate and prosecute the offences and to impose an appropriate sentence on M.P. by disregarding that she was coerced to have repeated sexual intercourse with him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the State’s positive obligation under Article   8 of the Convention to effectively prosecute and punish the non ‑ consensual sexual acts of which the applicant was a victim (see Vučković v. Croatia , no.   15798/20, § 50, 12 December 2023, with further references)?   In particular:   (a)     Given M.P.’s confession and the Ministry of Justice’s letter of 22   June   2023, did the domestic authorities, when approving the plea bargain between M.P. and the Public Prosecution Service, submit the case to careful scrutiny of all relevant considerations related to the case (see ibid., § 52)? (b)     By failing to consider the fact that M.P. threatened and extorted the applicant to compel her to engage in sexual intercourse with him, did the domestic authorities fail to pursue an obvious line of inquiry (see   mutatis mutandis, B.B. v. Slovakia , no. 48587/21, § 81, 24   October 2024)? (c)     Was the sanction imposed on M.P. excessively lenient compared to the seriousness of the acts he had confessed to having committed (compare Vučković, cited above, and A. v. Croatia , no. 55164/08, 14   October 2010)? In particular, did the domestic authorities, when imposing the sanction, sufficiently take into account the purposes of retribution and general deterrence, as well as the interests of the applicant as a victim of those offences (see Vučković, cited above, §§   60 and 63-65)?