A strasbourgi bíróság kettes számú tanácsa 5150 eurót ítélt meg a Kalucza
v. Hungary (Application no. 57693/10, 24 April 2012) ügyben. A döntés fontosabb megállapításai:
"59. [...] Under
Article 8, States have a duty to protect the physical and psychological
integrity of an individual from threats by other persons. To that end they are
to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording
protection against acts of violence by private individuals. [...] For the
Court, these considerations equally apply in situations where an individual’s
right to the enjoyment of his or home free of violent disturbance is at stake.
60. The main
issue in the present case is whether the State complied with its positive
obligation to protect the physical integrity of the applicant from the threat
posed by her former common-law husband. The applicant involuntarily shares her
home with this person, which is aggravated by the fact that their relationship
has deteriorated to such an extent that disputes - including mutual verbal and
physical assaults - occur on a regular basis. Her civil actions and criminal
complaints were to no avail.
62. The Court
notes that the national courts instituted several sets of criminal proceedings
against Gy.B. Having been found guilty on two occasions, he was released on
parole and ordered to pay a fine. Two other sets of criminal proceedings for
assault are pending against him. [...]
64.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court finds it striking that the
authorities needed more than one and a half years to decide on the applicant’s
first request for a restraining order. [...].
65. As to the
dismissal of the applicant’s requests for a restraining order, the Court takes
the view that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons for their
decisions. On both occasions, the courts referred to the hearings held in this
matter, but apart from stating that the bad relationship was imputable to both
parties and that the conditions for issuing a restraining order had not been
met, they failed to put in writing the particular reasons justifying their
decision.
68. Lastly, the
Court must draw attention to the fact that there are three different sets of
civil proceedings pending before the domestic courts concerning the apartment
in question. These proceedings, namely an action initiated by the applicant to
order Gy.B. to leave the apartment (see paragraph 34 above) and two sets of
proceedings for the determination of ownership (see paragraphs 28 and 29 above)
would, in theory, be capable of eradicating the root of the problem, which is
the unwanted residence of Gy.B. in the flat. In light of the regular and rather
violent disputes between the parties and the fact that those proceedings have
been suspended since 2007 and 2008, respectively, the Court finds that the
domestic courts failed to comply with their positive obligation to decide the
cases within a reasonable time".
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése