On 14 January 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) issued a significant judgment on sexual assault in the case of N.Ö v Türkiye. The case involved Ms N.Ö., a dentist working in a hospital in Ankara, who filed a complaint in 2012 against her colleague, Mr M.Y., the hospital’s Chief Medical Officer, for alleged sexual assault. After determining a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Court declined to examine the alleged breaches under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). This resulted in the Court’s failure to contextualise the applicant’s delay in reporting and the judiciary’s inaction within the broader framework of gender-based inequalities and discrimination.

According to Ms N.Ö., Mr M.Y. had repeatedly made inappropriate advances upon her, obtained her home address, and forced entry into her home in July 2010, where he allegedly assaulted her. She delayed reporting the incident for two years due to fear of retaliation and societal stigma. She eventually sought psychological support and filed a complaint, supported by an expert report diagnosing her with post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression.

The accused contested the allegations, arguing that Ms N.Ö.’s delay in reporting suggested consent, particularly given her “university education and status as a dentist” (para 11). Furthermore, he pointed to her continued employment at the same hospital and her social interactions with his family during hospital-organised events as evidence undermining her claims (para 11). The accused contended that a victim of such traumatic events would not have been able to continue with his/her daily life as usual after such a traumatic experience. Therefore, he claimed, the applicant’s silence and “normal behaviours” rendered her allegations unfounded.

No “In Dubio Pro Reo” for the Accused!

In its examination of the case, the ECtHR debunked such myths and found a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR (para 56). A significant aspect of the judgment was the ECtHR’s critique of Türkiye’s Court of Cassation’s application of the “in dubio pro reo” principle (when in doubt, rule for the accused). The case involved conflicting testimonies: Ms N.Ö. presented a piece of clothing with traces of the accused’s semen to the domestic courts. However, the testimonies differed on whether this clothing was the top or bottom part of a tracksuit. Additionally, when Ms N.Ö. requested an examination of her telephone records to clarify key inconsistencies in the accused’s testimony, the domestic courts failed to act on this request without providing justification.

The ECtHR held that “the failure of the authorities to respond adequately to the allegations of sexual assault demonstrates that they did not subject the case to the careful scrutiny required for them to properly discharge their positive obligations under the Convention.” (para 55)

According to the ECtHR, this lack of motivation to continue the investigation and to uncover all the facts of the case constituted a failure on the part of the judicial authorities in fulfilling their positive obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR.

Leaving Some Stones Unturned

The applicant also claimed that she was a victim of discrimination and alleged a violation of Article 14 (right to non-discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 of the ECHR. However, after finding a violation of Article 8, the Court held that it was “not necessary” to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints related to Article 14 (para 58).

This omission is a missed opportunity. The applicant’s delay in reporting and the authorities’ investigative failures are closely linked to the gender-based inequalities and stereotypes in the country. The Court overlooked this broader context, as it has in past cases on rape (such as D.J. v. Croatia). However, in Opuz v Türkiye, the ECtHR acknowledged and underlying systemic gender-based violence. A similar approach could have contextualised N.Ö. v Türkiye case within the broader context of structural gender inequalities.

A Pattern of Omission?

N.Ö. v Türkiye is not the only case where the ECtHR has declined to examine allegations under Article 14 having found a breach of Article 8. This pattern of hasty judgments fails to provide a comprehensive framework that fully analyses situations where multiple rights violations are at stake. Future judgments should aim to bridge these gaps by integrating a more robust analysis of discrimination and the societal context influencing judicial outcomes into their deliberations and decision-making processes.