Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Romania violated the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) by failing to provide an adequate legal framework and an effective investigation to protect the Applicant’s right to private life. The case concerned an 18-year-old student whose former boyfriend, out of jealousy, non-consensually disseminated her intimate images online and to her family and peers, causing her serious psychological harm. The Court found that Romanian authorities were inactive for long periods despite her prompt complaint and submission of evidence, misinterpreted the law by dismissing liability because she had initially shared the photos voluntarily, and allowed key charges to become time-barred. It emphasized that the prosecutors’ reasoning, portraying the acts as “childish revenge,” suggesting the Applicant contributed to her own victimization, and avoiding prosecution to spare the perpetrator, trivialized the severity of online abuse and reinforced harmful gender stereotypes. The ECtHR underscored that non-consensual sharing of intimate images constitutes a serious form of cyber-violence linked to gender-based violence, requiring clear criminal provisions and prompt, diligent investigations; civil remedies alone are insufficient. By failing to act effectively and promptly, Romania created a climate of impunity, thereby breaching its positive obligations under Article 8. As a result, the Applicant was awarded EUR 700 in pecuniary damages, EUR 7,500 in non-pecuniary damages, and EUR 215 in costs.

---

Facts

The Applicant, M.Ș.D., was a Romanian national. During the summer of 2016, when she was eighteen years old, she met V.C.A., who was twenty, through Facebook. She had recently been admitted to a university and was planning to study in the same faculty as V.C.A. Their online friendship quickly developed into a brief romantic relationship. During this time, they exchanged intimate messages and photographs. The relationship ended around mid-October 2016.

Following their breakup, V.C.A. became jealous of one of M.Ș.D.’s male friends and argued with him. On October 21, 2016, V.C.A. created several fake Facebook accounts using the identities of the M.Ș.D.’s friends. He used these accounts to distribute her intimate photographs. That same day, he sent the photographs to her brother, her uncle, and some of her brother’s close friends. When M.Ș.D. pleaded with him to stop, he escalated his actions by posting the images online, alongside her name and phone number, on several escort service websites. He later contacted her and stated he had no intention of stopping. As a result, she began receiving numerous calls from strangers soliciting sexual services. M.Ș.D. also alleged that after their breakup, V.C.A. displayed aggressive behavior toward her. He allegedly pushed her on one occasion and threatened her over the phone, expressing hope that she would commit suicide. On October 21, 2016, he also told her brother that his friends would distribute printed copies of her intimate photos at their university. V.C.A. continued posting her photographs on escort websites until late November 2016.

On October 31, 2016, M.Ș.D. filed a criminal complaint with Bucharest Police Station No. 8 (BPS 8). She provided information about the dissemination of her intimate photos and submitted a USB drive with recordings of her conversations with V.C.A. and his mother, as well as evidence of threatening phone calls. On November 29, 2016, she supplemented her complaint with additional information about V.C.A.’s threats.

From December 2016 through August 2018, a BPS 8 officer, I.T.A., attempted to contact the M.Ș.D. to obtain her statement. These attempts largely failed, as she was often unresponsive. Records show that on May 9 and August 10, 2018, she appeared briefly at BPS 8, stating she would return to provide a statement. She also noted V.C.A.’s prior 2015 drug possession investigation and said she did not intend to harm him. On May 4, 2017, BPS 8 opened a criminal investigation in rem for threats and violation of private life under Articles 206 and 226 of the Romanian Criminal Code. 

Both parties gave statements on August 22, 2018. M.Ș.D. reiterated her allegations and stated that V.C.A. had included her home address in the online posts. She clarified that he had not physically harmed or directly threatened violence against her. V.C.A. admitted to disseminating her intimate photos out of jealousy and anger, claiming she had mocked him by sharing a photo of him with others. After her interview, M.Ș.D. alleged misconduct by Officer I.T.A. She claimed he intimidated her into attending interviews by blocking her path with his car and threatening to close her case or fine her. She further alleged he summoned her and V.C.A. simultaneously despite her fears, discouraged her from hiring a lawyer, and pressured her to withdraw her complaint. She reported that this conduct worsened her psychological state.

On December 14, 2018, an online publication reported on M.Ș.D.’s case under the headline “The supreme humiliation.” The article criticized the authorities for dismissive attitudes and pressure on M.Ș.D.. It was alleged that the police initially refused to register her complaint and suggested she return with her father. It also reported that Officer I.T.A. offered to mediate between her and V.C.A. A public protest in Bucharest followed on December 16, 2018.

On December 17, 2018, prosecutors transferred the investigation from BPS 8 to the Criminal Investigation Service of the Bucharest Police (SIC) due to jurisdictional requirements. M.Ș.D.’s challenge to Officer I.T.A.’s conduct was dismissed as irrelevant. She retained legal counsel on December 14, 2018.

M.Ș.D. gave another statement on January 11, 2019, in the presence of her lawyer, reiterating her allegations and submitting screenshots and recordings to support her claims. SIC heard three witnesses, including her brother, by the end of January 2019. In February 2019, she requested the expansion of charges to include harassment, threats, and computer-related forgery. In April 2019, investigators identified sufficient evidence of unlawful dissemination of her private photos, allowing the case to proceed against V.C.A. personally.

V.C.A. was interviewed again on April 29, 2019, where he confirmed creating multiple fake Facebook accounts to share the photos. The investigation later expanded to include computer-related forgery. However, M.Ș.D. filed a complaint over the excessive duration of proceedings, and on November 27, 2019, the District Court ordered prosecutors to conclude the investigation within four months, criticizing periods of unjustified inactivity.

In January 2020, SIC proposed closing the case, reasoning that M.Ș.D. had voluntarily shared the images with V.C.A., and thus no crime of private life violation occurred. It also proposed dropping the forgery charges for lack of public interest, recommending instead that V.C.A. apologize publicly and perform community service. On June 10, 2020, the prosecutor adopted these recommendations. The decision also dismissed harassment and threat charges as time-barred. The prosecutor suggested that prosecuting V.C.A. could unduly traumatize M.Ș.D. and emphasized that both parties were young and inexperienced at the time. The prosecutor controversially remarked that M.Ș.D.’s decision to send intimate photos contributed to the situation.

The District Court later confirmed parts of the prosecutor’s decision, including closure of the private life and harassment claims, ruling that dissemination of voluntarily shared photos did not meet the criminal offense elements. M.Ș.D. appealed, arguing this interpretation undermined privacy rights and state obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The District Court eventually annulled the July 2020 judgment in February 2021 on procedural grounds and criticized the prosecutor’s reasoning, calling V.C.A.’s acts socially dangerous and dismissing the notion that they were merely childish revenge. However, in January 2022, the prosecutor again closed the investigation on computer-related forgery, citing a statute of limitations and the ne bis in idem principle, which prohibits a “double jeopardy” of being prosecuted twice for the same offense. The District Court confirmed that while prosecutors improperly ignored its instructions to reopen the case, the forgery charge was time-barred by November 2021.

The case attracted political and public attention. In December 2018, a Member of Parliament questioned the Ministers of Internal Affairs and Justice about the authorities’ handling of the case. A disciplinary inquiry into Officer I.T.A. followed. In November 2022, the National Council for Combating Discrimination issued an opinion criticizing the prosecutor’s statements characterizing M.Ș.D.’s intimate photos as “indecent,” calling such language inappropriate and subjective. Psychologists’ reports submitted by M.Ș.D. detailed her ongoing psychological harm, including decreased self-esteem, avoidance of university, generalized anxiety, and impaired trust in relationships. These reports attributed some worsening of her condition to the prosecutor’s remarks.

---

Decision Overview

The Fourth Section of the ECtHR delivered a unanimous judgment in the present case. The primary issue before the Court was whether the Romanian authorities had fulfilled their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to protect the Applicant’s right to private life in the context of online harassment, specifically the non-consensual dissemination of her intimate photographs by a former partner, and whether the criminal investigation conducted at the national level met the standards of promptness, thoroughness, and effectiveness required by the Convention.

M.Ș.D. argued that Romania failed to provide her with effective protection against online harassment and the non-consensual dissemination of her intimate images by her former partner. At the time, Article 226 of the Criminal Code was unclear and inconsistently applied, leaving victims of “revenge pornography” without adequate criminal law remedies. She emphasized that although she had promptly filed a criminal complaint in 2016 and provided substantial evidence, the authorities treated her case superficially, pressured her to withdraw her complaint, and delayed the investigation for years. This lack of urgency allowed key charges, such as harassment and threatening behavior, to become time-barred. She further contended that the authorities misinterpreted the legal framework by dismissing the offense of violation of private life on the ground that she had voluntarily shared her photographs with her partner, ignoring the fact that dissemination without her consent was unlawful.

She also criticized the prosecutor’s reasoning that criminal proceedings against her former partner would be excessive, that his acts were childish and motivated by jealousy, and that she herself had contributed to the situation by sending intimate images. Such arguments, she claimed, shifted the blame onto her and trivialized the harm she suffered, thereby reinforcing gender stereotypes and discouraging other victims from pursuing complaints. M.Ș.D. maintained that the authorities’ failures not only violated her right to private life under Article 8 but also caused significant psychological harm, as confirmed by medical reports. She argued that civil remedies could not provide sufficient protection or deterrence in cases of this nature, and only a proper criminal-law response could meet Romania’s obligations under the Convention.

On the other hand, the Government contended that the Romanian legal system had provided adequate protection against M.Ș.D.’s complaints and that the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images was criminalized under the existing framework, later clarified by the High Court of Cassation in 2021 and further strengthened by Law no. 171/2023. They argued that the authorities had taken appropriate steps to investigate M.Ș.D.’s case, identified the perpetrator, and applied sanctions that were proportionate to the circumstances. In their view, the prosecutor’s decision not to indict V.C.A. was based on a careful assessment of the facts, including the risk of retraumatizing M.Ș.D., the limited punitive role of criminal law in cases involving young people, and the fact that both parties were students who had lacked life experience.

The Government also emphasized the M.Ș.D.’s own conduct, noting that she had often failed to respond to investigators’ summonses, which slowed the proceedings. They argued that once she engaged a lawyer, the investigation progressed more actively, demonstrating that the authorities were responsive when M.Ș.D. fully cooperated. Additionally, the Government defended the prosecutor’s reasoning, insisting that the observations about M.Ș.D.’s role in the relationship and the “childish” nature of V.C.A.’s actions were contextual assessments rather than discriminatory judgments. They maintained that the community service and public apology imposed on V.C.A. were adequate remedies under criminal law and capable of providing fair reparation to M.Ș.D..

The AIRE Centre, as third-party intervener, emphasized that non-consensual image sharing constitutes serious online violence within the ambit of Article 8 ECHR, requiring prompt, thorough, and effective criminal-law responses. It cautioned that investigative delays and institutional reluctance risk fostering impunity and undermining victim protection, particularly for women and girls.

The Court began its analysis by noting that the M.Ș.D.’s complaints fell to be examined solely under Article 8 of the Convention, as they primarily concerned the State’s positive obligations to protect her right to respect for private life in the context of online harassment and the unlawful dissemination of intimate images. It recalled that the concept of “private life” was broad and encompassed physical and psychological integrity, personal identity, and the right to control the use of one’s image. Acts of non-consensual sharing of intimate photographs directly interfered with these protected interests, engaging the State’s duty to adopt effective measures both in law and in practice.[ Kurt v. Austria, (2021) & Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania, (2019)] 

Drawing on its own precedents, including Söderman v. Sweden, (2013), and K.U. v. Finland (2008,) the Court emphasized that positive obligations under Article 8 required States not only to abstain from arbitrary interference but also to ensure effective respect for private life in relations between private individuals, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims of domestic and online violence.  This duty included establishing a clear and adequate legal framework, taking preventive measures when authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk, and conducting effective investigations. Where intimate aspects of an individual’s life were at stake, the margin of appreciation afforded to States was narrow. The Court reiterated that “online harassment is currently recognized as an aspect of violence against women and girls” and must be treated with the same seriousness as offline violence. The Court further clarified that “online violence, or ‘cyberviolence’, is closely linked with offline, or ‘real-life’, violence and falls to be considered as another facet of the complex phenomenon of domestic violence”. [paras. 118–120] 

 

In assessing Romania’s legal framework, the Court observed that Article 226 of the Criminal Code, as it stood in 2016, did not effectively criminalize “revenge pornography.” The provision required proof that images had been obtained unlawfully, a gap that allowed perpetrators who initially received images consensually to escape liability. This gap was only clarified by the High Court of Cassation’s binding decision of June 24, 2021, which held that the unlawful dissemination of private images engaged liability regardless of how the images were obtained. The Court also noted that the Romanian Parliament eventually amended the law in 2023 to explicitly criminalize the dissemination of intimate images without consent, but this reform came too late to protect M.Ș.D..  

 

The Court criticized the authorities’ handling of the investigation, finding that they failed to act with promptness and diligence. The police remained inactive for long periods, at times over a year, despite M.Ș.D.’s complaints and submission of evidence. The Bucharest District Court itself had acknowledged that the length of the investigation was excessive and unjustified. The Court stressed that effective investigations required immediate and proactive steps, especially when digital evidence could be easily erased or altered. 

Turning to the prosecutor’s decision of June 10, 2020, the Court expressed particular concern with the reasoning that prosecuting V.C.A. would be an “excessive penalization” and that M.Ș.D. herself had contributed to the situation by sending intimate images. The Court found this approach troubling, as it shifted blame to the victim and trivialized the severity of the acts. Such reasoning, it observed, was incompatible with the State’s duty to protect women from gender-based violence and ran counter to international standards under the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention),  and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Court underlined that “civil remedies were insufficient” in such cases, since they lacked deterrent effect and could not guarantee removal of images. [para. 82]

The Court referred to its established case law, including K.U. v. Finland (2008), Volodina v. Russia (no. 2) (2021), and Buturugă v. Romania (2020), in which it held that online harassment, malicious impersonation, and dissemination of intimate material were forms of violence requiring active State protection. It reiterated that States had a duty to adopt both legislative measures and effective investigative practices to prevent such acts and punish perpetrators. By failing to do so, Romania created a “feeling of impunity” that left M.Ș.D. vulnerable to serious violations of her dignity and psychological integrity. [para. 114]

The Court also rejected the Government’s argument that criminal sanctions against V.C.A. would have been excessive or unnecessary. It stressed that acts of “revenge pornography” are inherently harmful, aimed at humiliation, and have long-lasting consequences for victims. The Court found persuasive the District Court’s later observation that V.C.A.’s actions demonstrated social danger and disrespect for fundamental values of private life and dignity. The suggestion that the M.Ș.D.’s conduct contributed to the offense was “incomprehensible” and ran contrary to the duty of authorities to protect victims without discrimination. [para. 146]

In conclusion, the Court held that Romania failed to meet its positive obligations under Article 8 by not providing an adequate criminal framework at the relevant time and by failing to conduct a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation into M.Ș.D.’s complaints. The State’s response was not capable of affording real protection against online harassment and the non-consensual dissemination of intimate photographs. Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court awarded M.Ș.D. €7,500 (8,792 USD)  in non-pecuniary damages and €4,000 (4,689 USD)  for costs and expenses

---