Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 133
August-September 2010
Farcaş v. Romania (dec.) - 32596/04
Decision 14.9.2010 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Alleged lack of access to court for a physically disabled person: inadmissible
Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of petition
Alleged inability of physically disabled applicant to exhaust domestic remedies, owing to lack of special facilities providing access to public services: inadmissible
Facts – The case concerned the physical impossibility for the applicant, who has been disabled since the age of ten, to access certain public buildings in the city where he lives. Until 2004 he worked as an electronics repairman in a telecommunications workshop but, following his transfer to a new post that would have required him to carry out external work for which he was unsuited, he was obliged to accept a negotiated termination. He claimed that he had not been able to challenge the termination of his contract before the domestic courts because, since the entrance to the local court building was not specially adapted, he could not enter the court or seek assistance from the bar association. For similar reasons, he had not been able to claim unemployment benefit or challenge a refusal to grant him a personal assistant and contest the amount of a disability pension. More generally, the applicant complained before the European Court of the major difficulties he had encountered in establishing relationships with the outside world and in his personal development, in particular as he was not able to use public transport or the city’s public buildings which had no special access facilities for persons with reduced mobility.
Law – The Court took the view that the applicant’s claims could be best examined under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8, alone or in conjunction with Article 14. In addition, it decided to examine of its own motion the question whether Article 34, alone or in conjunction with Article 14, had been complied with, in view of the alleged impossibility for the applicant to challenge the decisions concerning his civil rights and thus to exhaust domestic remedies, because he had been unable to access the premises of the domestic courts, contact a lawyer or use postal services.
Articles 6 § 1 and 34, alone or in conjunction with Article 14: The applicant had complained that it had been impossible for him to bring legal proceedings to challenge the decision to discontinue his professional activity, the refusal to grant him a personal assistant and the amount of his disability pension. Those challenges had direct implications for his civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, which was therefore applicable. The Court reiterated that hindrance in fact could contravene the Convention just like a legal impediment and that limitation of access to a court could not go as far as interfering with an individual’s entitlement to a fair hearing. Article 34 could also come into play if it transpired that the applicant had not been able to exhaust domestic remedies, consult a lawyer to prepare his defence before the domestic courts or communicate freely with the Court, because no specific measures had been taken to enable persons with reduced mobility to use public postal services. In this connection, positive measures could be expected from the State under Article 34.
In the present case, the Court concluded that neither the right of access to a court nor the right of individual petition had been hindered by insurmountable obstacles preventing the applicant from bringing proceedings or from lodging an application or communicating with the Court. He could have brought proceedings before the courts or the administrative authorities by post, if necessary through an intermediary. The local post-office was accessible and, in any event, access to it was not indispensible for posting letters. The assistance of a lawyer was not necessary to bring the proceedings in question, and the applicant could always have contacted the bar association by letter or fax, or could have made a request to the court for free legal assistance. Lastly, no appearance of discriminatory treatment against the applicant had been noted.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Article 8, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14: The Court rejected, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the part of the complaint that concerned the decisions of the applicant’s employer and the administrative authorities. As regards the alleged failure of the authorities to take measures to enable the applicant to access certain public buildings and to travel around the town, the Court reiterated that Article 8 did not apply each and every time the daily life of a person alleging lack of access to public institutions was in issue, but only in cases where a lack of such access prevented an individual from exercising his right to personal development and his right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world. In those circumstances, the State could be expected to take measures to guarantee access to such institutions. However, in view of the general nature of the applicant’s allegations, there remained some doubt about his daily use of those institutions and about the direct and immediate connection between the measures required of the State and his private life. Moreover, the Court noted that the situation in the town where he was living had gradually improved over the past few years, with the adoption of new legislation that encouraged integration of the disabled. In addition, without underestimating the daily difficulties that he must have encountered, the Court pointed out that since 2004, shortly after he lodged his application, the applicant had been granted a personal assistant and received an allowance on that basis.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).
© 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