London, 31 May 2013

On 28 May 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in the case of Eremia and Others v Moldova (Application no. 3564/11) held that the state’s failure to take decisive action in a domestic violence case breached the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). Specifically, the Court found that the failure of the state to fulfil its positive obligations breached the right to be protected from inhuman treatment (Article 3); the right to private life (Article 8); and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14).  The Equal Rights Trust intervened in the case, arguing that domestic violence against women affected them differently and disproportionately and had to be treated as gender discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Convention; and that the government had a positive obligation under that Article to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish discriminatory violence. The Court agreed.

The case was brought by Ms Eremia and her two daughters (the applicants), who were represented by Ms Doina Străisteanu. Ms Eremia had been the victim of domestic violence by her husband, a policeman, who was also the father of her daughters. She applied to the Moldovan court for a protection order, which was granted. Her husband was ordered to stay away from the family home and prohibited from contacting his wife and children for 90 days but repeatedly breached the protection order. Ms Eremia reported these breaches. The authorities, while taking some steps, failed to ensure sufficient protection.

The applicants claimed that Moldova had breached its positive obligation to prevent them from being subjected to inhuman treatment under Article 3. Ms Eremia submitted that the authorities “had or ought to have had knowledge” of her husband’s violence against her and had not ensured the timely enforcement of the legislation enacted specifically to protect victims of domestic violence. She also argued that a decision to suspend a criminal investigation against her husband had exempted him from criminal liability, despite his numerous breaches of the protection order and the repeated assaults. The applicants also claimed that the authorities’ failure to apply domestic legislation intended to afford protection from domestic violence was the result of preconceived ideas concerning the role of women in the family, and this constituted a violation of their Article 14 right to non-discrimination.

The government argued that the authorities had taken all reasonable measures to protect the applicants from the risk of violence and to prevent such violence from recurring.

The Equal Rights Trust (ERT), acting as a third party, submitted that there was well-established evidence that domestic violence impacted disproportionately and differently upon women. If it was to be effectively tackled, such violence demanded a particular response, which included treating such violence as a form of gender-based discrimination. Failing to realise this amounted to a failure to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem and its impact upon the dignity of women. ERT then analysed relevant international human rights law related to states’ obligations concerning gender based violence.

The Court held that:

• Ms Eremia’s injuries, as a result of which a protection order had been granted,and the anxiety caused by her fear of future attacks, amounted to inhuman treatment under Article 3 and the authorities’ failure to take measures in relation to this inhuman treatment amounted to a breach of the state’s positive obligations under Article 3. Specifically, despite the authorities being aware of the husband’s violent behaviour and the fact that Ms Eremia was in a particularly vulnerable position, the actions taken by the authorities were not effective or decisive.

• Ms Eremia’s daughters’ rights to a private life and respect for their home under Article 8 had been interfered with by their father. This lack of effective action by the state was a breach of its positive obligations under Article 8.

• States have an obligation under Article 14 of the Convention to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish acts of gender based violence.  The authorities’ actions were not a simple failure or delay in dealing with violence against Ms Eremia but amounted to repeatedly condoning such violence and reflected a discriminatory attitude towards her as a woman, thus constituting a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.

The Equal Rights Trust welcomes the recognition by the ECtHR of the importance of considering the Article 14 prohibition of discrimination in addition to other Convention rights in cases of domestic violence.

To read ERT’s case summary click here

To read the ECtHR’s judgment click here

To read ERT’s third party submission to the ECtHR click here