Domestic and intimate partner violence

The Family Violence Act 2024 (“FVA”) was ratified in 2024, replacing the Domestic Violence Act 1996. The FVA adopts a broad definition of “family member” including spouses, cohabitants and children, and expands the concept of domestic violence to include family violence. Family violence is defined as any physical, sexual, emotional, or economic abuse that is threatening, controlling, or coercive and causes a family member to fear for their safety. Additionally, causing a child to be exposed to such behavior is also considered family violence.

The Family Violence Act (the “FVA”) broadly defines family violence to include physical, sexual or psychological abuse by a person in a family relationship with the victim, which includes spouses (including domestic partners), family members or household members. The definition of family violence expressly includes dowry abuse. The object of the FVA is to stop and prevent perpetrators of family violence and to keep victims, including children, safe from family violence.

The Family Violence Protection Act aims to maximise safety for children and adults who have experienced family violence, and to prevent and reduce family violence to the greatest extent possible.  It also aims to promote accountability for those who perpetrate family violence.  The Act provides for police protection before court, family violence intervention orders (and their enforcement), and counselling orders.

In Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997), the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the issuance of a civil protective order based on testimony describing violent behavior by the appellant’s husband, which led her to fear for her life. After she filed criminal domestic violence charges, the county court granted a temporary protection order. The Court held that testimony about the husband’s past violence supported the issuance of the order and that a prior dissolution decree prohibiting harassment did not prevent further protective relief.

Ms. M. M. (the “Claimant”) filed an action with the District Court Bratislava II against her husband, Mr. Š. M. (the “Defendant”) to revoke his right to use the common household. This action was subsequently granted by the District Court Bratislava II, first in the form of a preliminary decision revoking the Defendant’s right to use the apartment and later as a final decision in the form of Decision No. 5 T 26/04. The court also found the Defendant guilty of the criminal offence of battery of a close relative and entrusted person and sentenced him to imprisonment.

Mr. X (the “Accused”) under the influence of alcohol physically assaulted his wife Mrs. Y (the “Aggrieved”) by hitting her head and face. Subsequently, the Accused physically assaulted the children of the Aggrieved from her first marriage. When the Aggrieved attempted to protect her children, the Accused beat her with his fists and kicked her. The Aggrieved and her children suffered various minor injuries which caused the inability to work for less than six days.

Over the course of two years Mr. X (the “Accused”) abused his wife Ms. Y (the “Aggrieved”) by constantly humiliating and beating her. As a result, the Aggrieved experienced substantial psychological trauma. According to the Aggrieved, the aggressive behavior of the Accused occurred on a daily basis and despite her refusal of intercourse, the Accused forced her into sexual intercourse by use of violence.

Mr. X (the “Accused”) threatened to kill his ex-wife, Mrs. Y, (the “Aggrieved”) by cutting her throat and hitting her head with a hammer. Two days later, the Accused threatened to kill the Aggrieved and her whole family and thereby caused the Aggrieved to fear that he would carry out such threats. The court ruled that the Accused had committed the criminal offence of dangerous threat under Section 360 (1) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him unconditionally to imprisonment for sixteen months.

Over the course of two months Mr. X (the “Accused”) threatened to kill his wife, Mrs. Y, (the “Aggrieved”) and to blow up the apartment. His actions and verbal assaults caused the Aggrieved to fear that he would carry out his threats. The Aggrieved and other witnesses attested to the Accused’s violent behavior. The Accused had previously been found guilty of similar violent acts for which the court had imposed a conditional sentence. The Aggrieved alleged that since the Accused was released from custody, his behavior had not changed and that he still had been insulting and threatening her.