Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 131

June 2010

Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia (dec.) - 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06

Decision 15.6.2010 [Section IV]

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1

Right to education

Measures taken by authorities of “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” against schools refusing to use Cyrillic script: admissible

Facts – According to its Constitution of 1978 the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic had two official languages: Russian and “Moldavian” (Romanian/Moldovan written with the Cyrillic script). In 1989 the Latin alphabet was reintroduced in Moldova for written Romanian/Moldovan, which became the first official language. In August 1991 the Republic of Moldova became an independent State. In parallel, separatists in Transdniestria sought to break away from the newly formed republic by adopting a “declaration of independence” in respect of the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”), which has not been recognised by the international community. Legislation introduced by the “MRT” authorities in 1992 requires “Moldavian” to be written with the Cyrillic alphabet and the use of the Latin script in schools has been forbidden since 1994. In 1999 the “MRT” ordered that all schools belonging to “foreign States” and functioning on “its” territory had to register with the “MRT” authorities, failing which they would not be recognised and would be deprived of their rights. In July 2004 the “MRT” authorities began taking steps to close down all schools using the Latin script. There now remain only six schools in Transdniestria using the Moldovan (Romanian) language and the Latin script.

The applicants were pupils (or their parents or teachers) attending three schools in the “MRT”. Two of the schools had been built with Moldovan public funds, were registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Education and were using the Latin script and a curriculum approved by that Ministry. Both these schools refused to register with the “MRT” authorities, as this would have meant having to use the Cyrillic script and the “MRT” curriculum. The third school, which was already using the Cyrillic script, petitioned the “MRT” authorities to be allowed to use the Latin script. All three schools were forced to transfer to new premises following stand-offs with the “MRT” authorities involving the intervention of the police to evict pupils, parents and teachers inside the buildings. The secondary-school pupils of the first school were moved to premises that had previously been used as a kindergarten and the school became a target for systematic vandalism. The second school was split up into three separate buildings in different parts of the town, with a main building that had no access to public transport and lacked a number of basic facilities. Faced with the occupation of the building by the “MRT” regime, the Moldovan Ministry of Education decided to transfer the third school temporarily to a village under Moldovan control some twenty kilometres away. This meant pupils and teachers being subjected to daily bag searches and identity checks by “MRT” officials. Numbers in all three schools have declined dramatically. In their application to the European Court, the applicants complain, inter alia, of the restrictions on their right to use the Moldovan language and Latin script and of the impact of these restrictions on the cultural identity and integrity of the Moldovan community in the “MRT” (Article 8 of the Convention), of the difficulties encountered by pupils wishing to be educated in the Moldovan official language and in accordance with the curriculum of the Moldovan Ministry of Education (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1) and of discriminatory treatment (Article 14 of the Convention).

Admissible under Article 8 of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, and Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The issue of whether the applicants came within the jurisdiction of either or both of the respondent States was joined to the merits.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy