The state’s failure to prosecute for domestic violence against a minor by her partner. Conviction for degrading treatment
JUDGMENT
A.E. v. Bulgaria 23.05.2023 (app. no. 53891/20)
SUMMARY
The case concerned complaints brought to prosecutors in Bulgaria that Ms A.E., then aged just 15,
had been a victim of domestic abuse, including being beaten, kicked and strangled, by the 23-yearold man with whom she was living.
The Court found in particular that the State had failed to protect A.E. in law – domestic-violence
legislation was deficient – and fact – prosecutors had not opened criminal proceedings despite her
vulnerable situation and the report that she had been subjected to repeated domestic violence.
PROVISIONS
Article 3
Article 14
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, A.E., is a Bulgarian national who was born in 2004 and lives in Kostinbrod (Bulgaria).
In 2018, having just turned 15, A.E. moved in with a 23-year-old man, D.M. She alleges that he beat
her regularly.
Following one such attack in September 2019 she ran out on him and went to hospital to seek
medical help. She was recorded as having, among other injuries, extensive bruising, which had been
caused by blows from hard objects.
A.E.’s mother went to social services following the incident, and they in turn contacted the
prosecutor’s office. They included a description of the circumstances and of several attacks which
A.E. had allegedly suffered at D.M.’s hand, emphasising that she was a minor.
As her mother was unable to exercise parental control, , an order was issued by social services for
A.E.’s placement outside the family.
The Kostinbrod prosecutor ordered a preliminary check, to be carried out by the police into the
complaints. The police interviewed A.E. and her mother, with the latter alleging, among other
things, that her daughter had been kicked in the stomach and strangled by D.M. In his police
interview D.M. denied both physical and psychological abuse.
In November 2019 the prosecutor decided not to open criminal proceedings, finding that only an
offence subject to private prosecution, namely minor bodily harm, had been committed. A.E. applied
for that decision to be overturned, but the Sofia regional prosecutor refused to do so, stating,
among other reasons, that there was no evidence that her life had been in danger or that she had even lived in a couple with D.M. That decision was later upheld by the Sofia appellate prosecutor
and Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 3
A.E. complained of both the legal frameworks applicable to domestic violence, in particular that the
violence had to be repeated or at least of moderate severity for a public prosecution to ensue, and
of the authorities’ reaction to her specific complaints.
The Court held that the physical violence that A.E. had suffered had, when combined with the
intimidation and distress she must have felt, been sufficiently serious to qualify the treatment which
she had endured as “degrading”.
Regarding private prosecutions as the means to secure justice in domestic abuse cases, the Court
reiterated that that put an excessive burden on the victim and could not prevent the recurrence of
similar incidents. In order for domestic violence to be publicly prosecuted under Bulgarian law,
recurrent acts of violence had to be established. Given the propensity for violence to worsen over
time, requiring repeated violence for the State to intervene did not meet the authorities’ obligation
to respond immediately to allegations of domestic violence and to demonstrate special diligence in
that context.
As regards the national authorities’ refusal to qualify the attacks as domestic violence as the couple’s
relationship had not met the legal definition, the Court found that this would filter out many
incidents of violence against women by their partners and would not meet Bulgaria’s Article 3
obligations.
It held that Bulgaria had not put in place an effective system to punish all forms of domestic violence
and provide sufficient safeguards for victims.
The Court noted that social services had informed the prosecutor of the repeated and serious nature
of the alleged assaults, which have been investigated. Instead the prosecutor relied entirely on the
preliminary inquiry. The refusal to open criminal proceedings was all the more serious given the
vulnerable situation of the applicant.
The Court held that Bulgaria had not put in place an effective system to punish all forms of domestic
violence and provide sufficient safeguards for victims. The State failed to protect A.E. adequately
either in law or in fact, leading to a violation of Article 3.
Article 14
The Court noted that this was the third such case against Bulgaria and that women are the
predominant victims of domestic violence in Bulgaria. As a female victim of domestic violence in
Bulgaria, A.E. had been in an unequal position which had required action on the part of the
authorities in order to redress the disadvantage associated with her sex in that context.
The Government had failed to show what policies they had pursued to protect domestic-violence
victims and to punish offenders. The Court found in the applicant’s case, under Article 3, that the
relevant legislation was deficient. Furthermore, the Court admonished the State for the continued
absence of official comprehensive statistics, given the level of domestic violence in Bulgaria and the
obligation to pay particular attention to the effects on women and to act accordingly. It also noted
that Bulgaria had not ratified the Istanbul Convention.
The Court held that the Government had failed to disprove institutional inaction on the part of the
authorities. As it was not necessary for A.E. to show she had been individually a victim of prejudice
on the part of the authorities, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 14 in
conjunction with Article 3.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Bulgaria was to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, and EUR 3,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
