Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas
2013 m. lapkričio 12 d.
Facts
In 2002, when the applicant was 14 years old, she discovered that her stepfather had hidden a video camera in the bathroom. The camera was directed at the spot where the applicant had undressed before showering. She took it to her mother who burned the film without anyone seeing it. The incident was reported in 2004 when the mother heard that the applicant’s cousin had also experienced incidents with the stepfather. The stepfather was prosecuted and convicted. However, his conviction was overturned on appeal after the court of appeal found that his act did not come within the definition of the offence of sexual molestation. The court of appeal went on to point out that the conduct might have constituted the separate offence of attempted child pornography, but did not consider the issue further in the absence of any charge.
Complaint
The applicant complained that Sweden failed to comply with its obligation under Article 8 to provide her with remedies against her stepfather’s violation of her integrity. She also relied on Article 13 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court endorsed the domestic court’s finding that the stepfather’s act had constituted a violation of the applicant’s integrity. Even though the event in question had not involved any physical violence, abuse or contact, it had affected the applicant in highly intimate aspects of her private life. There was no evidence that the domestic authorities had failed to comply with their obligation to conduct an effective prosecution. The question before the Court was therefore whether, in the circumstances of the case, Sweden had had an adequate legal framework to protect the applicant against the actions of her stepfather.
The Court ruled that the gaps in protection of her rights had not been remedied by the provision of criminal law at the time. New legislation, designed to cover an act such as the one in the applicant’s case, was adopted and entered into force in 2013.
Considering the applicant’s civil claim was also dismissed and no other remedies were available, the Court was not satisfied that the relevant Swedish law, as in force at the time, had ensured protection of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life in a manner that complied with the State’s obligations under Article 8. The act committed by her stepfather had violated her integrity and had been aggravated by the fact that she was a minor, that the incident had taken place in her home, and that the offender was a person to whom she was entitled and expected to trust.