A life in State care: two Romanian cases in which Strasbourg is now asking for answers

Most applications sent to Strasbourg never reach the Government's desk. They are declared inadmissible, often by a single judge. When the Court decides to “communicate” a case, putting formal questions to the State, it means the complaint has passed the first filter and deserves an answer. On 26 August 2026, the Court did this in two Romanian cases that together tell a story the country has not finished: what happens to people raised and kept in the care of the State.

The child in the orphanage, the adult without justice

Christie Alexander Rory was born in November 1979 and spent the years from 1980 to 1999 in State orphanages. In his application, he says he was tied to a bed for years, malnourished, beaten, and deprived of medical treatment and schooling. Today he suffers from several serious physical and mental health conditions, including schizophrenia, documented by medical records. He lives in the United Kingdom, where he obtained citizenship and receives treatment and social support.

In 2023, once his health had stabilised, he asked the Romanian authorities to identify and punish those responsible and to give him redress. His criminal complaints and civil claims were dismissed, either because the acts were not crimes at the time or because liability was time-barred. His requests for free legal aid were refused because the social aid he receives in Britain, about 600 pounds, exceeded the threshold in Romanian law. He also says he was discriminated against because of his Roma origin and his disability.

The Court asks the Government, among other things, whether it has jurisdiction over the period before 20 June 1994, when Romania ratified the Convention, given that the treatment allegedly continued afterwards; whether dismissing the complaints as time-barred is compatible with the State's duty to investigate ill-treatment; and whether a man with disabilities and no money had any effective remedy in practice. The Government must also describe the conditions in the orphanages where he lived and the support the law offers people leaving such institutions.

The woman without a guardian

The second case concerns a 38-year-old woman, identified only as G.S., with multiple and very severe disabilities, including blindness. She entered State care in April 1989, when she was a few months old, with the consent of her parents, who had no means to look after her. Since 2012 she has lived in the Zătreni Care and Assistance Centre, run by the Vâlcea social assistance directorate. No guardian has ever been appointed for her.

In 2021, the Centre for Legal Resources, an NGO that monitors the rights of people with disabilities, told prosecutors she was not receiving adequate medical care. On 15 February 2024, during visiting hours, a representative of the NGO, a psychologist and the woman's lawyer were stopped at the entrance. They got in several hours later, only with help from the police, and only the lawyer was allowed into the residential area. Without a psychologist, communication was impossible, and the lawyer was not shown the medical file. The criminal complaint for unlawful deprivation of liberty and misconduct in public office was dismissed, and the Bălcești District Court upheld that decision in October 2025.

The Court asks whether the woman is in fact deprived of her liberty without the safeguards required by Article 5 of the Convention, whether the absence of any guardian violates her right to private life, and whether the restrictions on meeting her lawyer and the NGO were disproportionate. It also asks whether refusing access breached the NGO's right to receive information, protected by Article 10.

Why these cases are worth following

Neither case is a judgment yet, and the State will set out its position. But the Court's questions touch three problems Romania has not solved: how the State answers for abuse in children's institutions before and after 1989, who decides that a person with disabilities can be kept in a centre and who may check what happens there, and whether the right to a lawyer works for those who cannot ask for one themselves.

We will follow both cases until they are decided.