Fundamentos destacados: 74. El Tribunal toma nota además del alegato de la demandante de que recurrió a las autoridades que ya estaban investigando su denuncia penal por agresión y amenazas ya que, en su opinión, existía un vínculo directo entre la violación de su correspondencia por parte de su exmarido y los actos de violencia, amenazas e intimidación a los que supuestamente había sido sometida (véase el apartado 55 supra). El Tribunal señala que, tanto en el derecho interno como en el internacional, el fenómeno de la violencia doméstica no se considera limitado al mero hecho de la violencia física, sino que se considera que incluye, entre otros aspectos, la violencia psicológica y el acoso (véanse los apartados 33 y 34-42 anteriores; y, mutatis mutandis, T.M. y C.M. c. la República de Moldavia, n.º 26608/11, § 47, 28 de enero de 2014). Además, el ciberacoso es reconocido actualmente como un aspecto de la violencia contra las mujeres y las niñas, y puede adoptar diversas formas, incluidas las violaciones de la ciberprivacidad, la intrusión en el ordenador de la víctima y la captura, intercambio y manipulación de datos e imágenes, incluidos los datos privados (véanse los apartados 36, 40 y 42 supra). En el contexto de la violencia doméstica, la cibervigilancia a menudo es llevada a cabo por la pareja íntima de la persona (véase el apartado 40 supra). En consecuencia, el Tribunal acepta el argumento de la demandante de que acciones como monitorear, acceder o guardar ilícitamente la correspondencia de la pareja pueden ser tenidas en cuenta por las autoridades nacionales al investigar casos de violencia doméstica.
[…]
76. En cuanto a la resolución final del órgano jurisdiccional de primera instancia de 25 de mayo de 2015, que consideró que la denuncia de la demandante relativa a la supuesta violación de su correspondencia no guardaba relación con el objeto del litigio y que la información publicada en las redes sociales era de carácter público (véase el apartado 21 supra), el Tribunal considera que estas conclusiones son criticables. Reitera que ya ha declarado que actos como el seguimiento, el acceso o el almacenamiento ilícitos de la correspondencia de la pareja pueden ser tenidos en cuenta por las autoridades nacionales al investigar casos de violencia doméstica (véase el apartado 74 supra). Considera que tales alegaciones de violación de la correspondencia exigen que las autoridades realicen un examen en cuanto al fondo para aprehender de forma exhaustiva el fenómeno de la violencia doméstica en todas sus formas.
[Traducción de LP]
74. The Court further notes the applicant’s submission that she applied to the authorities who were already investigating her criminal complaint for assault and threat since, in her view, there was a direct link between the breach of her correspondence by her former husband and the acts of violence, threats and intimidation to which she had allegedly been subjected (see paragraph 55 above). The Court notes that, under both domestic and international law, the phenomenon of domestic violence is not regarded as being limited to the sole fact of physical violence but is considered to include, among other aspects, psychological violence and stalking (see paragraphs 33 and 34-42 above; and, mutatis mutandis, T.M. and C.M. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 26608/11, § 47, 28 January 2014). Furthermore, cyberbullying is currently recognised as one aspect of violence against women and girls, and can take a variety of forms, including breaches of cyberprivacy, intrusion into the victim’s computer and the capture, sharing and manipulation of data and images, including private data (see paragraphs 36, 40 and 42 above). In the context of domestic violence, cybersurveillance is often carried out by the person’s intimate partner (see paragraph 40 above). In consequence, the Court accepts the applicant’s argument that actions such as illicitly monitoring, accessing or saving one’s partner’s correspondence can be taken into account by the domestic authorities when investigating cases of domestic violence.
[…]
76. As to the final decision by the first-instance court of 25May 2015, finding that the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged breach of her correspondence was unrelated to the subject matter of the case and that information posted on social media was public in nature (see paragraph 21 above), the Court considers that these findings are open to criticism. It reiterates that it has already held that acts such as illicitly monitoring, accessing or saving one’s partner’s correspondence can be taken into account by the domestic authorities when investigating cases of domestic violence (see paragraph 74 above). It considers that such allegations of breach of correspondence require the authorities to conduct an examination on the merits in order comprehensively to apprehend the phenomenon of domestic violence in all its forms.
[Idioma original]
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FOURTH SECTION
CASE BUTURUGĂ v. RUMANIA
(Application no. 56867/15)
STRASBOURG
11 February 2020
FINAL
11/06/2020
In the case of Buturugă v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,
Faris Vehabović,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
Branko Lubarda,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, judges
y Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2019 and 14 January 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 56867/15) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a national of that State, Ms Gina-Aurelia Buturugă (“the applicant”) on 11 November 2015.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms L. Cojocaru, a lawyer in Tulcea. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant alleged that she had been a victim of domestic violence and criticised the lack of action by the State authorities.
4. On 29 March 2017 the Government were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1970 and resides in Tulcea.
6. She complained that she had been the victim of domestic violence. She stated that, during her marriage to M.V., she was subjected to repeated physical violence and death threats, and that these intensified in November 2013. During this period that she and her former husband had been discussing the possibility of a divorce, which was ultimately pronounced on 30 January 2014.
[Continúa…]
