Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Romania violated Gina-Aurelia Buturugă’s rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) by failing to effectively investigate allegations of domestic violence and cyber violence. The case concerned a woman who was physically abused and whose private electronic communications were accessed by her former husband. The Court found that Romanian authorities mishandled the investigation by treating the incidents as isolated acts of interpersonal violence rather than recognizing them as part of a broader pattern of domestic abuse. It emphasized that domestic violence includes psychological and cyber elements and that the failure to investigate cyberviolence, viewed as a form of coercive control, reflected excessive formalism and neglected the State’s positive obligations to protect victims comprehensively.

Facts

Gina-Aurelia Buturugă, the applicant, is a Romanian national who alleged that she had been a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her former husband, M.V. During their marriage, she was subjected to repeated physical abuse and threats, particularly intensifying around November 2013 when the couple was discussing divorce. The divorce was finalized on 30 January 2014. Two specific incidents formed the crux of her initial complaints. On December 17, 2013, M.V. allegedly threatened to throw her off a balcony to simulate a suicide. On December 22, 2013, he reportedly struck her on the head and threatened to kill her with an axe, prompting her to lock herself in a room and call for help.

On December 23, 2013, Buturugă obtained a forensic certificate confirming injuries requiring medical treatment for three to four days. The same day, she lodged a criminal complaint against M.V., reiterating it again on January 6, 2014. She also claimed that authorities tried to convince her to drop the charges, citing the injuries as minor. Later, she requested to join the proceedings as a civil party and sought compensation. On March 18, 2014, she requested an electronic search of their family computer, alleging that M.V. had accessed her electronic accounts without permission and stored her private conversations, documents, and photos. However, the police denied this request on the basis that the evidence was unrelated to the violence and threat charges against M.V.

In March 2014, a protection order was granted by the Tulcea Court of First Instance based on forensic evidence and witness testimony. The order, effective for six months, barred M.V. from contacting Buturugă or approaching her residence. It was later upheld by the Tulcea County Court on appeal. Despite this, Buturugă alleged that her former husband repeatedly violated the order by threatening her through intermediaries and contacting her relatives. However, the government stated there were no formal reports of violations or renewal requests during the order’s validity. 

Meanwhile, Buturugă filed another criminal complaint on 11 September 2014 for breach of correspondence confidentiality, alleging that M.V. had unlawfully accessed and saved her private electronic communications. Witnesses, including her daughter and mother, were interviewed, but she claimed their testimonies were not recorded fully or lawfully. On February 17, 2015, the prosecutor discontinued the criminal case. While acknowledging M.V.’s death threat on December 17, 2013, the prosecutor deemed the act insufficiently severe to constitute a criminal offense and imposed only an administrative fine of 1,000 RON. The prosecutor found no direct evidence tying M.V. to the injuries sustained on December 22, 2013, and rejected the cyberviolence complaint as time-barred.

Buturugă challenged this outcome, but her appeals were dismissed by both the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Tulcea Court of First Instance and the Tulcea District Court. The Court upheld the view that the threats were not sufficiently serious and found no direct link between the injuries and M.V.’s actions. It also dismissed the cyberviolence complaint as irrelevant and stated that online data shared on social media was public. Buturugă further complained that parts of the evidence, including her requests and police reports, were missing from the case file, though the government denied this claim. Separately, in October 2015, Buturugă alleged a new incident in which M.V. chased her down a public street. She requested surveillance footage from nearby cameras. The government confirmed that a new investigation into harassment was opened, and CCTV footage was obtained, though a key witness had since left the country. The outcome of this proceeding was not made available to the European Court.

Buturugă approached the European Court of Human Rights, alleging violations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention due to the Romanian authorities’ failure to properly investigate and address both the domestic violence and cyber violence she endured.

Decision Overview

The Fourth Section of the ECtHR delivered a unanimous judgment in the present case. The primary issue before the court was to adjudicate on whether the Romanian authorities had fulfilled their positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Specifically, the ECtHR assessed the effectiveness of the domestic criminal investigation into Buturugă’s allegations of physical violence and threats by her former husband, as well as the failure of the authorities to address her complaint concerning cyber violence, namely the alleged breach of the confidentiality of her correspondence.

Buturugă contended that the Romanian authorities failed to fulfill their positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. She argued that the State did not adequately protect her from domestic violence and cyberviolence inflicted by her former husband. Despite her repeated complaints, supported by forensic and testimonial evidence, the authorities treated the matter as ordinary interpersonal violence rather than addressing it within the framework of domestic abuse. She also claimed that the authorities refused to investigate her allegations of unlawful access to her electronic correspondence, which she viewed as part of the broader pattern of abuse. She argued that this lack of diligence, failure to investigate, and formalistic dismissal of evidence not only denied her protection but also emboldened her abuser.

On the other hand, the Romanian Government asserted that it had met its obligations under the Convention by providing a sufficient legal and institutional framework for addressing both domestic violence and breaches of correspondence. It urged that Buturugă received a protection order, that criminal investigations were conducted with due diligence, and that the acts reported did not meet the threshold of criminal liability. The Government contended that the complaint regarding breach of correspondence was dismissed due to non-compliance with statutory time limits and that Buturugă could have pursued alternative remedies such as a civil lawsuit. Overall, the State maintained that the measures taken were adequate and proportionate under the circumstances.

The Court, firstly, reiterated that States have positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention to protect individuals from ill-treatment, including when the harm comes from private persons. It emphasized that domestic violence victims fall within the category of “vulnerable individuals” entitled to “effective deterrence” against violations of personal integrity, while referring to Opuz v. Turkey and Bălșan v. Romania. These obligations include both the duty to take reasonable preventive measures when there is a foreseeable risk and a procedural duty to conduct an effective official investigation into alleged ill-treatment. The Court also referred to international standards, highlighting the seriousness of gender-based and cyber violence. In its 2017 Concluding Observations, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women “noted its concerns about under-reporting of cases of gender-based violence against women and girls, including psychological and economic violence, sexual harassment and marital rape,” and urged Romania to ensure that all such cases are effectively investigated and perpetrators prosecuted with appropriate sentences. Additionally, a 2015 UN Broadband Commission report defined cyberviolence as behaviour where “‘cyber’ is used to capture the different ways that the Internet exacerbates, magnifies or broadcasts the abuse,” with manifestations ranging from online harassment to conduct leading to “sexual assaults, murders and suicides,” and specific categories such as hacking, impersonation, surveillance/tracking, harassment/spamming, recruitment, and malicious distribution.

The Court further noted European and Council of Europe definitions relevant to online gender violence. The Council of Europe’s 2018 mapping study described cyberviolence as “the use of computer systems to cause, facilitate, or threaten violence against individuals that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering” and listed forms including ICT-related violations of privacy, cyberstalking, online threats, and sexual exploitation. Cyberstalking was defined as a “pattern of repeated, intrusive behaviours – such as following, harassing, and threatening” in electronic form, often occurring in the context of domestic violence as a form of coercive control. EU data reinforced the prevalence of such harms: a 2012 EU Agency for Fundamental Rights survey found that 5% of Romanian women had experienced cyber-harassment since the age of 15, while a 2017 European Institute for Gender Equality report identified various forms of cyber violence against women and girls, such as non-consensual pornography, gender-based slurs, sextortion, and doxing, and warned against treating online abuse as isolated “incidents” rather than part of a broader continuum of violence.

Turning to the facts, the Court observed that although Buturugă had submitted complaints, supported by medical and testimonial evidence, the Romanian authorities failed to treat the case through the legal lens of domestic violence. Instead, they applied general provisions on assault and threats, overlooking Article 199 of the new Criminal Code, which allows for enhanced penalties and ex officio investigation in cases of family violence. The authorities’ failure to apply the appropriate legal framework demonstrated a lack of recognition of the specific nature of domestic violence, referring to the concerns raised in M.G. v. Turkey and E.M. v. Romania. 

Moreover, the Court found the prosecutor’s conclusion that the threats were not serious enough to be criminally prosecuted to be problematic. It criticized the dismissal of the forensic evidence and the lack of further investigative steps, such as interviewing neighbors or arranging confrontations. Rejecting the Government’s arguments, the Court held that Buturugă acted within a reasonable timeframe and that even one instance of physical violence, accompanied by sustained threats and coercion, could amount to a serious violation, especially when viewed in the context of domestic abuse. [Valiulienė v. Lithuania, 2013] The Court noted:

The Court emphasises that special diligence is required in dealing with domestic violence cases and considers that the specific nature of domestic violence as recognised in the Preamble to the Istanbul Convention must be taken into account in the context of domestic proceedings. In the present case, it notes that the domestic investigation conducted by the national authorities failed to take these specific aspects into account.

On the cyberviolence issue, the Court acknowledged Buturuga’s allegations that her former husband had unlawfully accessed her online correspondence and data. It referred to international instruments and reports recognizing cyberviolence as a component of gender-based and domestic violence. The Court accepted that illicit surveillance, monitoring, and manipulation of a partner’s digital communications could constitute coercive control and psychological violence within the domestic sphere. However, the Romanian authorities refused to conduct a proper investigation into the alleged breach of correspondence. They dismissed Buturugă’s request for a forensic search of the computer as unrelated, and later found her criminal complaint time-barred. The Court criticized this “excessive formalism” and faulted the authorities for not assessing whether the electronic monitoring was connected to the broader pattern of domestic abuse. [para. 75] The domestic court’s conclusion that Facebook data was public also ignored Buturugă’s complaint that private documents and conversations had been accessed and stored without her consent. 

In conclusion, the Court held that Romanian authorities failed to address Buturugă’s case “in a manner that was commensurate to the seriousness of the matters complained of”. [para. 79] The investigation into the acts of violence and threats was inadequate, and the cyberviolence complaint was never substantively examined, despite being closely linked to the abuse. Consequently, the Court held that the state had not fulfilled its positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. It awarded the Buturugă EUR 10,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 457 in costs and expenses, finding a violation based on the inadequate investigation and failure to address the psychological and technological dimensions of domestic violence.