Last Updated on September 2, by LawEuro. The case originated in an application no. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms S. The Chamber by a majority declared the application admissible and held that there had been a violation of Article 4 of the Convention in its procedural limb.
The dissenting opinion of Judge Koskelo was annexed to the judgment. On 19 October the Government requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention. On 3 December the panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. Owing to problems in her family, between and she lived with a foster family. Then she moved to a public home for children and young persons, where she stayed until she completed her professional training in catering service.
Afterwards she moved to live with her father in S. On 27 September the applicant came to a police station in Z. She alleged that during the summer of T. The applicant submitted that sometime before the summer of T.
Following this initial contact, for about a month or two she had continued exchanging messages with T. Then sometime in June or July she had met T. On that occasion T. For that purpose T. Already on that occasion the applicant felt that T. The applicant further stated that following this meeting she had continued exchanging messages with T. As she had had no reason to question T. This time when they met T. She had told T.
As she had earlier realised that T. The applicant had explained to the man what was happening and the man had not insisted on having intercourse with her but said that he would give her HRK The applicant further explained that after this incident, T. After a while, he had given her a mobile telephone so that clients could contact her and had continued to drive her to meet clients in various places.
