CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s5ED1BC6F { width:116.16%; border-collapse:collapse } .sFBA86575 { height:30.45pt } .s66023B62 { width:7.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCDF5403D { width:25.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4521A9B1 { width:26.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s63C5EE82 { width:20.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6370E78A { height:15.2pt } .s968037A8 { width:7.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s842615BF { width:25.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEC72E764 { width:26.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF87890 { width:20.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s16CBB0A7 { height:14.35pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 24 November 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33412/17 R.C. and Others against Italy lodged on 28 April 2017 communicated on 3 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the effectiveness of the criminal proceedings relating to sexual abuse of the first applicant and his alleged consequent secondary victimisation, as well as the impact of the proceedings on the applicants’ private and family life. The first applicant, a minor at the time of the facts, was victim of sexual abuse by his seventeen-year-old cousin. The other applicants are his parents and his sister. Criminal proceedings were instituted on 4 July 2007 and lasted until 19   July 2016, when the Court of Appeal ultimately convicted the accused of sex acts against minors under Article 609- quater of the Criminal Code. The case had by then passed through two levels of jurisdiction. The applicants complain that the investigation and court proceedings were unreasonably delayed and that this delay aggravated the first applicant’s trauma and caused him severe and permanent psychological difficulties, while also impacting on all the applicants’ private and family life. They invoke Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the second, third and fourth applicants claim to be victims of the alleged violations under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v.   Belgium , no.   13178/03, § 61, ECHR   2006 ‑ XI)?   2.     Was the investigation into the first applicant’s allegations of sexual abuse and the ensuing criminal proceedings effective as required by the positive obligations inherent in Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention ( X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 192, 2   February 2021, and L. and Others v. France , nos. 46949/21 and 2 others, § 201, 24   April 2025)? In particular:   (a) Did the criminal proceedings in the present case comply with the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition (see, among others, X   and Others v. Bulgaria , cited above, § 188; M.G. v.   Lithuania , no. 6406/21, §§ 112-15, 20 February 2024; Y. v.   Slovenia , no.   41107/10, § 96, ECHR 2015 (extracts); and D.M.D. v.   Romania , no.   23022/13, § 44, 3 October 2017)?   (b) Did the authorities take the necessary measures to conduct the proceedings without unjustified delays and to prevent, to the extent reasonably possible, the aggravation of the first applicant’s trauma (see M.G. v.   Lithuania , cited above, §§ 112-15)?     APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicants Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. R.C. 1996 Italian Vicenza 2. M.C. 1959 Italian Vicenza 3. T.C. 2004 Italian Vicenza 4. D.F. 1965 Italian Vicenza