A.R. v. Romania

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 38799/20 A.R. against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 October 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Faris Vehabović , President , Anja Seibert-Fohr, Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 38799/20) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 August 2020 by a Romanian national, Ms A.R. (“the applicant”), who was born in 2015 and lives in Bucharest, and was represented by Ms M. Pleşea, a lawyer practising in Bucharest;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 3 of the Convention to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the decision not to disclose the applicant’s name;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1 The application concerns the way in which the Romanian authorities discharged their positive obligations to take preventive operational measures and conduct an effective investigation into the alleged sexual abuse of the applicant by her father (R.H.). It mainly concerns issues under Article 3 of the Convention.

2 In September 2017 the Bucharest District Court dissolved the marriage of the applicant’s parents and granted parental authority over the applicant to both parents. The court determined that the applicant (who was 2 years old at the relevant time) would reside with her mother and set out a contact schedule with her father.

3 . On 15 and 17 May 2018 the applicant’s mother presented her daughter at Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute (“the INM”) and Grigore Alexandrescu Children’s Emergency Hospital for a physical examination and alcohol test (at INM only), claiming that her daughter had received wine and had been sexually abused by her father. Both examinations found no evidence of sexual abuse, trauma or any presence of alcohol in her blood (the INM, in respect of the latter).

4 . In context of the criminal complaint that the applicant’s mother lodged against R.H., on 18 May 2018, the INM, which was commissioned to carry out a forensic medical examination of the applicant, confirmed that she had not suffered any bodily or anal/genital trauma. The investigative bodies also heard the applicant’s two parents. R.H. denied committing any sexual abuse against his daughter.

5 . Following a fresh criminal complaint of 15 June 2018 regarding another alleged act of sexual abuse that had happened a day before, a forensic medical examination of 16 June 2018 did not reveal any traumatic signs of sexual abuse. The applicant’s mother stated that she had obtained information about the sexual abuse from the daughter herself.

6 . On 2 July 2018 the competent Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered the child protection authority to conduct a psychological evaluation of the applicant. Its report of 19 October 2018 indicated that the applicant had showed positive feelings towards her father and that no symptoms of abusive behaviour on the part of the father could be identified.

7 . The allegations of the applicant’s sexual abuse were brought to the attention of the specialised Service for Intervention in Situations of Abuse and Neglect of Minors within the child protection authority. Following an assessment of the situation, the parents were included in a parental counselling program and the applicant in evaluation and psychological counselling programs.

8 . Soon after, the Bucharest District Court granted the applicant’s mother’s request for an emergency protection order and suspended personal contact between the applicant and her father until 13 April 2020.

9 The applicant’s mother submitted to the prosecutor’s office two psychiatric reports of 19 and 21 July 2018 indicating that the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome following repeated and confirmed sexual abuse. The applicant underwent seven psychological evaluations by a psychologist (P.A.C.), who was later heard by the public prosecutor. The applicant was examined by a psychiatrist and by the psychologist, P.A.C., at her mother’s initiative.

10 In September 2018 the public prosecutor questioned the applicant’s father. Both parents and the maternal grandmother were given a polygraph test. While the father successfully passed the polygraph test, the mother and the maternal grandmother displayed noticeable emotional responses indicating a level of unease during the assessment.

11 . On 20 December 2018, at the request of the public prosecutor, the child protection authority issued an expert report establishing that the applicant did not show any signs of being sexually abused and that there had been pressure and the possibility of inducement by the mother.

12 . Numerous checks were carried out by the child protection authorities at the applicant’s domicile (her mother’s house) to assess her condition. The reports drawn up showed that the applicant lived in adequate conditions for her development and there was no indication that the applicant had been subjected to sexual, physical, mental or any other kind of abuse.

13 On 13 December 2018 the Prosecutor’s Office terminated the investigation finding no facts or circumstances which clearly indicated any sexual abuse of the applicant by her father.

14 . On the applicant’s mother’s request, accepted by the competent prosecutor, a new evaluation report of 8 February 2019 concluded that the allegations of the applicant’s mother were fictitious and had been intended to mislead the judicial authorities.

15 . On 8 March 2019 the prosecutor confirmed the termination of the investigation on the grounds that the acts of sexual abuse had not existed. By a final decision of 20 December 2019, the pre-trial judge of the Bucharest District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision.

16 The competent public prosecutor noted the mother’s lack of cooperation with the child protection authority and an alleged attempt by her to bribe the psychologist appointed by that authority to evaluate the applicant. He further pointed out that the applicant’s mother had subjected her 3-year-old daughter to five genital examinations, seven sessions of psychological evaluation and two psychiatric examinations outside the criminal proceedings by experts chosen by her. Blood samples had been taken to check the applicant’s blood alcohol level on several occasions, and she had been recorded by her mother while she repeatedly asked her daughter questions about the alleged sexual abuse. As the prosecutor considered that such treatment had jeopardised the physical and intellectual development of the applicant, he initiated an investigation against the applicant’s mother for subjecting her minor daughter to ill-treatment under Article 197 of the Criminal Code.

17 . The applicant’s mother was convicted by the first-instance court of ill-treatment of her minor daughter, after which the Bucharest Court of Appeal acquitted her by a final decision on 6 June 2024. The appellate court concluded that the lodging by the applicant’s mother of two criminal complaints against the applicant’s father and her behaviour in relation to other authorities might have been the result of the mother’s distorted perception of the applicant’s statements against the backdrop of her hyper-protective attitude and long-standing conflicts with her ex-husband. The court found that the actions of the applicant’s mother had not jeopardised the applicant’s physical, intellectual or moral development. The multiple psychological evaluations of the applicant had not revealed any developmental deficiencies, and she displayed a predominantly positive attitude and strong attachment towards both parents.

18 Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant’s mother complained on behalf of her daughter that the domestic authorities had failed to provide a proper response to the allegations of sexual abuse of her daughter by her father and that her daughter risked being subjected to similar abuse in the future.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

19 The Courts does not consider it necessary to address the Government’s objection on account of the applicant’s representation by her mother due to the potential conflict of interest between them related to the criminal proceedings described in paragraph 17 above, because the applicant’s complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

20 The general principles relevant for the present case were summarized in X and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 22457/16, §§ 176-78 and 184-92, 2 February 2021) and A and B v. Croatia (no. 7144/15, §§ 106-13, 20 June 2019).

21 The applicant’s mother complained to the authorities about the alleged sexual assault of the applicant by her father on two occasions (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above).

22 Considerable efforts were made by the investigative bodies to verify the mother’s allegations. They interviewed and examined all persons who might have had any knowledge of the events, including the applicant’s parents. The applicant’s father denied any sexual abuse of the applicant. Psychiatrist P.A.C., who had examined the applicant at her mother’s request, was also heard by the prosecutor.

23 During the ensuing investigation all the relevant evidence had been gathered and properly assessed. Polygraph tests given to the applicant’s parents and maternal grandmother did not corroborate the suspicions.

24 The prosecutor also noted that during several examinations at the INM and the emergency hospital, the applicant did not show any signs of being sexually abused (see paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above). Moreover, according to the findings in the expert reports commissioned by the prosecutor, the applicant had not described contextually characteristic situations of sexual abuse and her emotional response towards her father had not corresponded to the mother’s allegations (see paragraphs 6 and 11 above).

25 The prosecutor finally decided to drop the case for lack of evidence. The prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the investigation was also subject to judicial control (see paragraph 15 above). The criminal proceedings lasted one year and seven months, from 18 May 2018 to 20 December 2019.

26 The fact that the authorities decided not to prosecute cannot be seen as arbitrary or a result of any failure on their part. The Court reiterates that it cannot substitute its own findings of fact for those of the national authorities, which are better placed to assess the evidence adduced before them (see M.P. and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 22457/08, § 112, 15 November 2011).

27 In addition, the competent child protection authorities reacted quickly to the mother’s allegations and provided professional assistance and counselling to the applicant and her parents. They carried out checks and requested explanations from the persons concerned with the mother’s allegations and conducted a psychological evaluation of the applicant (see paragraphs 7 and 12 above). A protective order had been issued in the applicant’s favour (see paragraph 8 above) until the situation could be clarified.

28 The Court is, therefore, satisfied that the domestic authorities did everything that could have reasonably been expected from them to protect the rights of the applicant, a child who was allegedly the victim of sexual abuse, and to act in her best interests.

29 In sum, the Court concludes that it does not appear that the authorities failed to discharge their positive obligations flowing from Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 29 October 2026.

Simeon Petrovski Faris Vehabović Deputy Registrar President