Script for presentation

I. Introduction

In twenty-first century, men-women have equal rights in terms of work,

opportunity, education, opinion, decision-making, and leadership. Gender equality
is not only a fundamental human right, but it is also essential for a peaceful,
prosperous, and sustainable world. Unfortunately, until today there are still many
people who have been victims of sexual harassment in public, in education, at work,
or by relatives. According to International labour organization, globally, 17.9% of
employed women and men reported having encountered psychological abuse and
harassment at work, while 8.5 percent had dealt with physical abuse and harassment.
It means that one in five people was being harassment. It was also confirmed that
most of victim is women.
On other hand, freedom from sexual harassment has been effectively
protected by article 8 of European Court of human rights convention, “right to
respect for private and family life”. This convention was bonded by the member
governments of the council of Europe toward peace and unity based of human rights
and vital of freedoms, implementation to member state. If someone violate any
article will face with the judgement of the court. As one of important case related to
workplace sexual harassment violation “C. v. Romania” which known as a
significant flaw in criminal investigation concerning.
This research paper aims to analyze and discuss about the case of C. v.
Romania. We will emphasis on IRAC rule of analysis, stands for issue, rule,
application, and conclusion structure of legal analysis. There are three important
research questions (1) what is this case about? (2) what is the judgment of the case?
And how does this case influence to national level and constitution system?
I. Case Study of C. v. Romania: Facts of the case

• The applicant was born in 1970, and lives in Fibiş, Timiş County. She
was represented by Ms B.I. Radu, a lawyer practicing in Timişoara.
• The applicant, C., was employed as a cleaner at the state-owned railway
company's Timişoara East station.
• She was suffer from sexual harassment from her station maganer (C.P)
has been 2 year period.
 This was described by applicants as following:
“[The applicant] has performed her duties for the past 5 years, but
about 2 years ago, [C.P.] changed his initial attitude (which had been
appropriate), requesting that [the applicant] have sexual intercourse
with him.
As she consistently refused [his advances], he undertook a series of
acts designed to create discomfort in the workplace for the victim,
terrorising her.
He repeatedly tried to undress [the applicant] when he found her alone
or in secluded places
• She made the decision to report the station manager (C.P.) to her own
boss after allegedly dealing with his aggressive behavior and sexual
advances. She relied on article 223 of criminal code, and proposed with
several witness and summit recording (discussion with C.P of sexual
nature).
• She try to report to the prosecutor’s office, C.P. had apologized when
questioned by the management, and it appears that the train company did
not pursue the matter further. This decision was upheld by the chief
prosecutor of the same office and then by a District Court.
Why the case stop here??
• The Court noted that the railway company was owned by the State and
thus represented a public authority. However, it appeared that the train
firm did not take many actions in response to one of its employees'
claims of sexual harassment.
II. Legal question
• The applicant had no cause to mistrust the effectiveness or ability of the
criminal investigation to result in remedy.
• the State had adequately upheld the applicant's right to respect for
her private life, particularly her personal integrity, during the criminal
procedures involving the charges of sexual harassment.
 • ECtHR found that the Romanian State had violated its positive
obligations under Article 8 ECHR, because of the significant flaws in
the investigation of applicant’s case.
III. Rule of law
According to ECtHR, this case is strongly based on article 8 of convention –
Right to respect for private and family life. The content as following:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of
this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in
a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or
the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.

Analyzing

A: The applicant
The applicant spoke of the humiliation she had experienced at the hands of C.P.
throughout the time he had harassed her at work, claiming that she had gone
through emotional abuse that had ended in her being sacked.
B: Government
The Government asserted that the authorities had taken all necessary steps to
uphold their positive obligation. The applicant, in particular, had the
opportunity to voice her concerns to the authorities and had benefited from
adversarial proceedings because she was able to refute C.P.'s assertions and
offer her own arguments and supporting evidence
According to Article 8, States have a responsibility to defend a person's
physical and mental integrity. To that aim, they must uphold and effectively
implement a sufficient legislative framework that provides protection against
private individual acts of violence, particularly in the context of workplace
harassment.
How did this case relate to article 8 of ECtHR?
➢ protection should be ensured through efficient criminal-law mechanisms
➢ As regards less serious acts between individuals which may violate
psychological integrity, an adequate legal framework affording protection
does not always require that an efficient criminal-law provision covering the
specific act be in place.
➢ criminal proceedings should be organised in such a way as not to
unjustifiably imperil the life, liberty or security of witnesses
Judgement
➢ A decision of the European Court of Human Rights which recognizes that
conduct that constitutes sexual harassment can violate Article 8 if it
influences a certain level of severity, in certainly good news for sexual
harassment victims.
➢ respondent State shall pay the applicant EUR 7,500
➢ plus any applicable tax, within three months of the date the judgment
becomes final under the Convention, to be converted into the currency of the
Respondent State at the exchange rate in effect on the date of settlement.
The effect of judgement: National level & constitution system
• The restriction on the human right implementation in national level. The
government took steps to identify, investigate, prosecute, and punish
officials who committed abuses,
• The national court shall set aside any provision of domestic law which may
conflict with EC law
➢ Rising awareness of freedom of private life to citizen.
➢ sets up a robust protection mechanism for victims.
➢ Romania has improved protection of women from domestic violence
(partial)