Last Updated on September 22, 2021 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 215
February 2018
V.C. v. Italy – 54227/14
Judgment 1.2.2018 [Section I]
Article 3
Positive obligations
Failure by authorities to provide timely protection to minor who had been subjected to prostitution and rape: violation
Article 8
Positive obligations
Failure by authorities to provide timely protection to minor who had been subjected to prostitution and rape: violation
Facts – Between April and June 2013 the applicant, aged fifteen, was apprehended at a party where alcohol and drugs were being consumed; her parents then stated, among other things, that their daughter suffered from psychiatric disorders and had been approached to pose for pornographic photographs.
The authorities had launched a criminal investigation as soon as they became aware of the applicant’s vulnerable circumstances and the real and immediate risk she was facing. However, although the public prosecutor applied in July 2013 to have urgent proceedings instituted and to have the applicant admitted to a specialist institution and placed in the care of social services, more than four months elapsed before the Youth Court reached a decision in December 2013; in the intervening period, however, the applicant was a victim of sexual exploitation.
Following the Youth Court’s decision, the social services took more than four months to implement the order for the applicant’s placement in care, despite requests to that effect by her parents and two urgent requests from the Youth Court for information. During that time, the applicant was raped and a criminal investigation into alleged gang rape was opened on that account; the suspects were identified and the proceedings against them are currently pending in the District Court.
Lastly, although the applicant had refused to be taken into care in December 2013, she consented to such a measure in January 2014, three months before being admitted to an institution.
Law – Articles 3 and 8
(a) Applicability – The applicant belonged to the category of “vulnerable individuals” who were entitled to State protection. As she had been the victim of sexual exploitation and rape, the bodily harm and psychological pressure to which she had been subjected were sufficiently serious to reach the level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3. Furthermore, such violent acts, which had interfered with the applicant’s right to respect for her physical integrity, had caused disruption to her daily life and had an adverse effect on her private life. In addition, an individual’s physical and psychological integrity were included in the concept of private life, which extended to the sphere of relations between individuals. Accordingly, Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention were both applicable.
(b) Merits – It had taken the Youth Court four months, from the date on which it had become aware of the difficult and dangerous situation in which the applicant had found herself, to adopt the protective measures provided for by law and requested by the public prosecutor, despite the fact that the applicant had faced a known risk of sexual exploitation, given that a criminal investigation was under way and her parents had informed the authorities.
The fact that at one point in time the applicant had not given her consent to being admitted to an institution had not in itself exempted the State from having to take appropriate and sufficient measures to protect a minor in such a way as to ensure compliance with the positive obligations imposed by Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
In addition, the conduct of the social services indicated a lack of real commitment to implementing the Youth Court’s decision, as they had failed to attend the hearings and had taken an excessively lengthy time to select an institution to house the applicant.
Unlike the criminal courts, which had acted promptly, the competent authorities – namely the Youth Court and the social services – had in practice taken no protective measures in the immediate term, even though they had been aware that the applicant was physically and psychologically vulnerable, that proceedings concerning her sexual exploitation were still pending and that an investigation into the alleged gang rape was ongoing. By acting in this way, the authorities had not carried out any assessment of the risks faced by the applicant.
In those circumstances, the authorities could not be said to have displayed the necessary diligence. They had therefore not taken all reasonable measures in good time to prevent the abuses suffered by the applicant.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also the Factsheet on Protection of minors)
Leave a Reply