CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 avril 2026

.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 } Published on 11 May 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 4200/25 A.I.L. against Romania lodged on 30 January 2025 communicated on 21 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of a prompt and effective investigation with regard to the criminal complaint with civil claims brought on 30   November 2021 by the applicant (aged 15) against two of her classmates for the offences of violation of private life and of unlawful accessing of a computerised device. Her classmates copied her intimate photographs from her mobile phone and disseminated them to her family, schoolmates and other friends by means of a fake profile account created on a social media application. The authorities took the first meaningful investigating steps in the case in April 2023, when they began interviewing witnesses. By a final judgment of 18 February 2025, the Cluj County Court confirmed a decision by the public prosecutor to close the investigation in respect of the case. The public prosecutor held that the statutory limitation period with regard to the offence of violation of private life had expired and that there had been no public interest in pursuing the investigation with regard to the offence of unlawful accessing of a computerised device. Relying on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that the national authorities had allegedly failed to comply with their positive obligation of effectively protecting her right to respect for her private life given her young age at the time of the impugned events. They had allegedly failed to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into the unlawful copying and public dissemination of her intimate photographs by her classmates, which had been capable of having a dissuasive effect, of avoiding her secondary victimisation, and of remedying the alleged damage caused to her by her classmates’ actions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the national authorities discharge their obligation under Article   8 of the Convention of effectively protecting the applicant’s right to respect for her private life given her young age at the time of the impugned events? Did they conduct a prompt and effective investigation into the unlawful copying and public dissemination of her intimate photographs by her classmates, which had had a dissuasive effect, had avoided her alleged secondary victimisation, and had remedied the alleged damage caused to her by her classmates’ actions (compare M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, §§   150 and   152-53, ECHR   2003-XII; K.U. v. Finland , no. 2872/02, §§ 41-43, ECHR   2008; and M.Ș.D. v. Romania , no. 28935/21, §§ 121, 138 and 156, 3   December 2024)?