European Court of Human Rights

A, a Croatian woman was subjected to repeated violent behavior by her mentally-ill ex-husband, B, often in front of their daughter, whom on occasions turned violent towards the daughter too. Seven sets of proceedings were brought against B and although some protective measures were implemented, others were not. The prison sentences were not served and some of the treatment was not undergone due to a lack of qualified providers. A was refused an injunction prohibiting B from harassing and stalking her on basis that there was no immediate risk to her life.

ECHR, Case of A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France, Strasbourg 6 April 2017, (Applications N° 79885/12, 52471/13 et 52596/13) (On French authorities' refusal to allow three transgender individuals to change the gender marker on their birth certificate without having undergone sterilization surgery).

The applicant was allegedly tortured and raped while in the custody of the State security forces although according to the Government reports, she and the other members of her family were never detained. They filed a complaint to the Public Prosecutor who sent them to the State hospital for a medical examination, resulting in a perfunctory report not focusing on whether the applicant had in fact been raped. The Public Prosecutor thereupon reported to the Principal State Counsel that there was no evidence to support the applicant's complaints but the investigation was continuing.

A Spanish woman of Nigeria origin was allegedly verbally and physically abused when she was stopped and questioned while working as a prostitute in the street on two occasions. She lodged a complaint with the investigating judge who asked the police headquarters to produce an incident report in which the identities of the police officers on patrol at the time of the incidents differed from those indicated by the applicant. The judge subsequently made a provisional discharge order and discontinued the proceedings on basis of insufficient evidence.

Following divorce and during extended custody proceedings in Bulgaria, B agreed to the father having contact with the child, S. However, he refused B’s contact with S. B recovered S from the kindergarten, which led to the father threatening her and eventually entering her home seeking to recover the child. B moved to a hostel for victims of domestic violence in another town, but the authorities threatened to prosecute her for abduction of S. Despite being asked by B to make an interim order concerning custody of S, the Bulgarian courts failed to do so.

In 1984, a married Italian woman decided to have an abortion despite her husband’s, the applicant, opposition. The applicant initiated a suit against his wife claiming that the termination deprived him of his right to be a potential father and the unborn child of its right to life. He also challenged the constitutionality of Italian legislation which provided that women could unilaterally decide whether to have an abortion.

In the case of Bouton v. France, the applicant, a feminist activist who was a member of Femen, was convicted and given a one-month suspended prison sentence (i.e. with probation) for staging a topless protest in a church in December 2013, exposing her breasts with slogans daubed over them, as part of an international action against the Catholic Church’s position on abortion. She was also ordered to pay the parish representative 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damages and to pay EUR 1,500 towards the other party’s costs.

Three lawfully and permanently settled residents of the UK challenged the Government's refusal to permit their husbands to join or remain with them on the basis of the 1980 immigration rules in force at the time. The rules applied stricter conditions for the granting of permission for husbands to join their wives than vice versa. These conditions did not apply to the wives of male permanent residents.

The petitioner, a domestic violence survivor, could not find affordable legal assistance to appear before a court.  The Court ruled that member states must guarantee effective access to the courts, including access to counsel.

Gender-based law on marital names.  The Court found no legal justification for a law to require married women to take their husbands' surnames.