5.  The applicant was born in 2001 and lives in Bucharest. His parents, C.I. and D.D., separated in April 2004 and divorced in September 2004, mainly because of D.D.’s abusive behaviour towards his wife and their son. The applicant remained with his mother. On 27 February 2004 C.I. called the hotline of the Bucharest Child Protection Authority (Direcţia Generală de Asistenţă Socială şi Protecţia Copilului) to report the domestic abuse she and the applicant had been suffering at the hands of D.D. Since then, the case has been monitored by the Authority. On 7 October 2008 the Child Protection Authority certified that since 2004 it had included the applicant in a psychological counselling programme.
The Child protection Authority issued the following statement concerning the monitoring of the applicant’s case (on 29 August 2005 for the purpose of court proceedings):
“Mrs [C.I.] kept contact with our institution, the case being monitored by the Legal Counselling Service (legal counselling concerning eviction from home ...) as well as by the Service concerning emergency relocation and the Centre for Psychological Counselling for Parents.”
6.  On 5 March, 16 April, 7 May and 30 June 2004 C.I. lodged complaints with the Bucharest Police about the alleged violence inflicted by her husband on the applicant. No action was taken on these complaints. On 1 July 2004 C.I. lodged a new complaint with the police concerning the alleged abuse. The police heard evidence from witnesses on behalf of the applicant and obtained information about the applicant’s situation from the centre where he and his mother had been relocated. Based on the evidence gathered, the police sent the file to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest District Court (“the prosecutor”).
7.  On 1 November 2005 the prosecutor instituted a criminal investigation against D.D. It heard evidence from C.I., D.D. and six witnesses and examined the expert reports concerning the applicant’s and D.D.’s psychological evaluations. It concluded that the applicant had suffered trauma during his early childhood because of his father who had done everything he could to torment him and to make him suffer.
8.  On 27 December 2007 the prosecutor indicted D.D. for abusive behaviour towards his son.
9.  The Bucharest District Court heard evidence from a psychologist who had observed the applicant during therapy, from C.I. and other witnesses, as well as from D.D., the last mentioned denying having hurt his son. C.I. did not request damages on behalf of the applicant. In a decision of 9 June 2008 the court acquitted D.D. on the grounds that his occasionally inappropriate behaviour towards the applicant had not been severe enough to constitute a crime. This decision was upheld by the County Court on 19 February 2009, but on 19 June 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal quashed this latter decision and remitted the case to the County Court, as it considered that the lower courts should have heard evidence from the applicant and relied on the psychological reports.
10.  On 14 December 2009 the County Court held a private hearing and interviewed the applicant. He told the judges how D.D. used to hit him, lock him in a small room without lights, throw water on him while he was sleeping and call him names. He stated that D.D. had often fought with his mother and that sometimes he had thrown the applicant’s maternal grandmother and aunt – who were bringing food to the child – out of their apartment. The applicant told the court that he did not want to live with D.D. or even meet him on the street. He was persuaded that D.D. would want to hurt him. He stated that he wished that D.D. would be punished for what he had done to him.
11.  In a decision rendered on 22 December 2009 the County Court convicted D.D. of ill-treatment inflicted on a minor and sentenced him to a suspended penalty of four years’ imprisonment. It considered that the evidence in the prosecution file, in particular the psychological reports and the testimony given by a psychologist, confirmed that the child had suffered trauma as a consequence of his father’s abusive behaviour.
The court also noted that C.I. had not requested damages on behalf of the applicant (see paragraph 9 above). Based on Article 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, see paragraph 24 below), the court, on its own initiative, awarded the applicant 20,000 Romanian lei (RON) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
12.  Upon an appeal on points of law lodged by D.D., on 7 April 2010 the Bucharest Court of Appeal remitted the case to the County Court and ordered that court to obtain an expert examination of the applicant by the Forensic Medicine Institute.
13.  On 26 April 2012 the County Court rendered a new decision. Based on the evidence before it, notably the expert evaluations, psychologist’s testimony, witness statements, as well as the parents’ and the applicant’s statements, the County Court considered it established that D.D. had physically and verbally abused his child from 2002 to 2004. It stated:
“The County Court notes that the acts perpetrated by [D.D.] cannot be considered as isolated and random acts of physical punishment which parents can administer to their minor children, but became more severe and caused childhood attachment troubles.”
14.  D.D. was convicted of ill-treatment inflicted on a minor. He was given a suspended sentence of one year’s imprisonment; in addition, his right to be elected and his parental rights were suspended during the sentence and for two additional years.
15.  When sentencing D.D., the court took into account the undue length of the criminal proceedings and that there had been significant periods of inactivity by the authorities involved, in particular by the investigators and the Forensic Medicine Institute.
16.  No award of damages was made. The court did not give any explanation in its judgment as to why it decided not to award compensation to the applicant.
17.  All parties appealed on points of law. Relying on Article 17 of the CCP (see paragraph 24 below), the applicant and the prosecutor complained notably about the fact that the County Court had not awarded damages.
18.  The Bucharest Court of Appeal examined the parties’ submissions in the light of the evidence before it. It reaffirmed that D.D. had physically and verbally abused his child; his sentence was recalculated based on the same criteria, including the reduction as a remedy for the length of the trial. The court accordingly increased the sentence to three years’ imprisonment and suspended it. The additional penalty of restricting D.D.’s right to be elected and his parental rights was maintained.
19.  The court further considered that in so far as both the prosecutor and the applicant had limited their initial appeals to solely the criminal aspects of the District Court’s decision of 9 June 2008, the County Court had been right in not awarding damages on its own initiative. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“In so far as the prosecutor’s office and the injured party argued that the [County Court] should have examined the award of damages on its own initiative because the injured party was a minor, it is to be observed from the content of the decision under review that both the prosecutor’s office and the injured party had expressly limited their appeals to the criminal aspects of the case.
In this situation, the [County Court] was right in limiting its examination strictly to the issues brought before it.”
20.  The Court of Appeal rendered its final decision on 1 November 2012 and rectified the text of the operative part on 22 November 2012.