The Committee has issued ten decisions regarding complaints filed against parties under the Optional Protocol. In five instances, the complaint was found “inadmissible” due to lack of supporting evidence, failure to exhaust normal judicial remedies, or other reasons that the Committee could not reach a decision on the merits. 

In four instances, the Committee has found a violation of the Convention.  In A.T. v. Hungary, issued January 2005, the author of the complaint (“author”) alleged that she and her children suffered severe violence and abuse at the hands of her common law husband but had not received any protection from the Hungarian government.  The allegations included violent physical abuse, threats of sexual abuse, and refusal to pay child support.  The allegations of physical abuse were supported by medical certificates.  Not only were no restraining orders or protection orders available for the author under Hungarian law, but the husband successfully obtained an order from Hungarian civil courts allowing him access to the family’s apartment based on the conclusion that no abuse could be substantiated and the husband’s property rights could not be restricted. (The apartment was jointly owned.) The author sought help from the civil and criminal courts and child protection authorities, but did not receive any assistance or protection.  Following some discussions with the Committee, in 2003 the Hungarian government adopted a resolution regarding prevention and treatment of domestic violence, including plans to introduce legislation providing for restraining orders, provide free legal aid in some circumstances, collect data on domestic violence, and implement a number of additional initiatives. However, in 2004 the author alleged that none of these proposals had been effectively implemented.  The Committee found that Hungary had violated the rights of the author under the Convention, and made recommendations to Hungary that it act to protect the safety of the author and act more generally to effect the rights granted under the Convention.

In A.S. v. Hungary, issued August 2006, the author alleged she had been subjected to coerced sterilization.  She was given a form to sign during an emergency caesarean section, which turned out to include a section (which was barely legible and used terms she did not understand) granting consent to a sterilization procedure.  After the caesarean section was complete she asked when she would be able to have another child, and only then understood that she had been sterilized.  She filed a civil legal complaint, but was unsuccessful, primarily because the court found that she had not proven that it was completely impossible that she would be unable to reverse the surgery or otherwise become pregnant.  The Committee found that Hungary had violated numerous provisions of the Convention, and recommended that Hungary compensate the author and take steps to prevent similar events from occurring in the future, including reviewing domestic legislation and monitoring practices in hospitals. 

Şahide Goekce (deceased) v. Austria, and Fatma Yildirim (deceased) v. Austria, both issued August 2007, were related cases that were brought by domestic violence organizations on behalf of women who had been killed by their husbands.  In both cases, although the police had repeatedly intervened in response to allegations of abuse and threats, and the victims had been granted numerous restraining orders, all attempts to have the perpetrators detained or prosecuted had been denied by local government officials.  The authors argued that Austria failed to take sufficient measures to protect the life and safety of the victims, failed to appropriately prosecute those who violate the right to be free of gender-based violence, and generally failed to protect the safety of women.  The Committee found that although Austria had an acceptable system in place to deal with violence and abuse, it failed to ensure that the individuals involved in the system acted in such a way that it would actually serve to protect individual victims.  As a result, Austria was in violation of numerous provisions of the Convention.  The Committee recommended that Austria improve its implementation and monitoring of its legislation regarding domestic violence, strengthen training programs, and take related steps to improve implementation of relevant law, including improving prosecution of domestic violence perpetrators.

In one instance, the Committee found that no violation had occurred.  In Dung Thi Thuy Nguyen v. The Netherlands, issued March 2004, the author worked part-time as a salaried worker and part-time in her husband’s business.  When she took maternity leave, she was granted government benefits to compensate her for the loss of her salaried income; however, when she applied for additional benefits to compensate her for her loss of income from her husband’s business, she was denied.  This was due to a portion of the unemployment law called the “anti-accumulation clause,” which limits benefits under the act.  She appealed this decision through the administrative courts in the Netherlands, and argued that this clause resulted in unfavorable treatment of women as compared to men because of its impact on women who take maternity leave.  The Committee found that the Convention requires states to implement policies to ensure that women who take maternity leave will receive some pay or other benefits; however, it does not require states to provide full pay or full compensation for loss of income.  The specific provisions enacted by the Netherlands were found to fall within the discretion accorded to state parties.