Published on 30 September 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 11887/24
Victor CREȚU
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 15 April 2024
communicated on 11 September 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application mainly concerns the alleged lack of protection and assistance provided by the authorities to the applicant, a minor born in August 2006 described at some point as suffering from a psychosocial disability, and his internment in a psychiatric hospital where he was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. It further concerns the alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into the ill-treatment and the alleged breach of his right to education.
In particular, between 2018 and 2019, during the summer holidays and at the initiative of the local authorities, the applicant was placed in rehabilitation and social integration centres for young children. Representatives of the Children’s Ombudsperson had visited the applicant’s place of residence on several occasions (in February 2019 – in an abandoned nursery school building and in July 2019 – on a cow farm), finding him in extremely poor living conditions (starving and suffering of severe cold; absence of heating, the wood being too cold to light the fire; poor state of the premises in question with water leaking from the roof; sleeping with animals) and being in the absence of his mother for extended periods.
Due to inappropriate and aggressive violent behaviour and following medical advice, with his mother’s authorisation, from 27 November 2018, the applicant, then aged twelve, was placed in a psychiatric hospital, on three occasions, for short periods. In the psychiatric ward, the applicant was allegedly held against his will, in inadequate material conditions, for some time in the unit under strict supervision where patients diagnosed with severe mental illness were kept, and was subject to medical restraint, despite the absence of psychiatric disorders or pathologies according to a psychological assessment carried out on 3 May 2019.
In February 2019 the applicant’s representative lodged a criminal complaint against the psychiatric hospital, claiming that the applicant had been submitted to ill-treatment because of the conditions of his placement and of the prescribed treatment. These proceedings have been pending since then, without any significant progress, despite repeated requests from the applicant.
Following another set of proceedings introduced by the applicant’s representative, the Anenii Noi District Court, by a judgment of 22 June 2022, ordered the municipality to assemble a multidisciplinary team within the local public administration, to draw up an individual assistance plan in the field of health, social assistance and education for the applicant, to guarantee the applicant access to psycho-educational assistance services, to find a place for the applicant’s family guaranteeing his right to a residence complying with hygiene standards and, finally, to guarantee his right to education.
Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant alleges a violation of both the substantive and the procedural limbs of this provision due to the non-respect by the State of its positive obligations to provide him with proper housing and to protect him from inhuman and degrading living conditions. He further complains of the ill-treatment in the psychiatric hospital and the failure to conduct an effective investigation into his internment.
Under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the authorities’ failure to offer him reasonable accommodation in accordance with the judgment of 22 June 2022 was due to discrimination on grounds of disability.
The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention due to the lack of an effective remedy capable of protecting him from the State’s failures.
Finally, the applicant alleges a violation of his right to education under Article 2 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the national authorities comply with their positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention to offer the applicant protection and assistance on account of his personal situation? Was the decision-making process with respect to the applicant’s psychiatric internment and to the medical treatment received there in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Were the failure to provide the applicant, together with his family, with proper housing and his placement in insalubrious conditions in a unit under strict supervision, where he was allegedly subjected to various forms of coercion, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 177, 2 February 2021; Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 130 ss., ECHR 2014; and B. v. Romania (no. 2), no. 1285/03, §§ 85-92, 19 February 2013)?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection under Article 3 of the Convention, did the authorities carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and other forms of coercion and neglect during his internment (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 145 ss., ECHR 2014, and X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, §§ 184 ss., 2 February 2021?
4. Has there been a discriminatory difference in treatment on the ground of the applicant’s medical condition and social status as regards the authorities’ failure to offer him reasonable accommodation in accordance with the judgment of 22 June 2022, in violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
6. Did the authorities guarantee the applicant’s right to education protected under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in accordance with the judgment of 22 June 2022 imposing an obligation on the Government to provide the applicant with schooling?
In particular, what measures have been taken to provide the applicant with integrated education for children from different social backgrounds (see Çam v. Turkey, no. 51500/08, §§ 52-54 and 64-67, 23 February 2016; Sanlisoy v. Turkey (dec.), no. 77023/12, §§ 58-61, 8 November 2016; Enver Şahin v. Turkey, no. 23065/12, §§ 52-55 and 60-61, 30 January 2018; and G.L. v. Italy, no. 59751/15, §§ 49-54, 57 and 62-63, 10 September 2020)?