M.C. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 44654/18
M.C. and Others
against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 October 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Tim Eicke, President,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 September 2018;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1.  A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The first applicant is the second and third applicants’ son. They were represented by Ms C.M. Rădulescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.

2.  The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3.  On 28 February 2019 the Government were given notice of the application. At the same time they were informed of the decision not to have the applicants’ name disclosed and of the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court). They presented their submissions on 9 July 2020, 11 October and 10 November 2021.

4.  On 24 June 2019 the President of the Section granted leave to intervene in the proceedings to the Romanian National Disability Council and the European Disability Forum (jointly); Disability Rights International and Disability Rights Law Clinic (jointly); the European Network on Independent Living and the Alliance for Inclusive Education (jointly); the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and Forum for Human Rights (jointly); and the Validity Foundation.

5.  On 17 March 2008, when he was nine years old, the first applicant was diagnosed with oppositional disorder and emotional regress, a condition characterised by irritability, argumentative and defiant behaviour and vindictiveness.

6.  From September 2008 he attended classes at the public school “E.L”. Because of behavioural issues in class, the second and third applicants contacted the Save the Children foundation, which offered him counselling, group support and intervention in the classroom.

7.  During the 2010 to 2011 school year, the first applicant was allegedly bullied by S., his principal class teacher, and by some pupils in his class.

8.  As the applicants’ repeated pleas to the school and to the Ministry of Education (“the Ministry”) to resolve the issue or to allow the first applicant’s transfer to another public school remained unanswered, on 16 September 2011 the first applicant was transferred to a private school where he continued his education.

9.  On 7 November 2011 the second and third applicants, acting on behalf of the first applicant, lodged a criminal complaint against S., accusing him of physical and psychological abuse against their son at school. They also requested damages on the child’s behalf as follows: 78,820 euros (EUR) for school fees for the school years from 2011 to 2016 and EUR 30,000 for non‑pecuniary damage.

10.  On 26 January 2017 the Bucharest District Court convicted S. for twenty‑one acts of abusive behaviour against the first applicant, sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment suspended for four years. The court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the request for damages. In a final decision of 15 June 2017 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the sentence was reduced to one year.

11.  On 18 December 2013 the first applicant, represented by the second and third applicants, lodged an action for damages, complaining of alleged mistreatment at E.L. school, of lack of action by the authorities to prevent his bullying and to accommodate his disability and of the failure to secure his transfer to a different school. He claimed damages, including the private school fees for the school years 2011 to 2013.

12.  In a final decision of 30 June 2021, the Bucharest Court of Appeal found that the school and the Ministry had not dealt properly with the first applicant’s case and that their omissions had affected his dignity, self‑esteem and reputation. It also found that the second and third applicants were equally responsible for the first applicant’s distress at school, as they had consistently refused to cooperate with the school and had rejected several measures proposed for their son’s benefit. Consequently, it ordered the Ministry and E.L. school to pay the first applicant half of the school fees, thus awarding 23,333.50 euros (EUR), plus interest, in respect of pecuniary damage. It also awarded the first applicant 4,000 Romanian lei (approximately EUR 800 at that time) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage for the affront to his dignity.

13.  On 7 March 2018 the first applicant lodged an action with the Bucharest County Court arguing that he had been a victim of discrimination for lack of reasonable accommodation of his disability at E.L. school. He claimed EUR 56,806, representing the school fees paid to the private school for his upper secondary education (liceu, school years 2015‑2019) and EUR 20,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

14.  On 22 December 2021 the Court of Appeal dismissed the action as ill‑founded. It reiterated that in the final decision of 30 June 2021 (see paragraph 12 above) the court had found that, by their actions and omissions, the Ministry and E.L. school had had an impact on the applicant’s dignity. Therefore, insofar as the applicant’s middle school education was concerned, that is, years five to eight (ciclul gimnazial), their actions/omissions could be qualified as discriminatory as they had prevented the applicant from attending public school on an equal basis with pupils who did not have special educational needs.

15.  However, as the first applicant had not sat a school entrance exam provided for by law, he could not have attended upper secondary education in a public school. Consequently, he was not in a comparable situation to the pupils in the public sector and the defendants could not have discriminated him during that time.

16.  In a final decision of 17 October 2023 the High Court of Cassation and Justice upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision.

17.  The applicants complained of the first applicant’s mistreatment at school (Article 3 of the Convention) and the authorities’ alleged inability to protect him and his right to education (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1). They further considered that the domestic proceedings had not been fair (Article 6) and that they lacked effective remedies to present their grievances (Article 13). They argued that the second and third applicants’ right to respect for their private life and the first applicant’s right to education had been breached because of the latter’s disability (Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1).

THE LAW

18.  The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as the compensation proceedings were ongoing at the time. The applicants responded that the authorities had only partially acknowledged and provided redress for the violations of the Convention and reiterated their initial arguments.

19.  The Court does not have to address all the issues raised by the parties. In the light of the developments in the compensation proceedings post-dating the communication of the application to the Government (see paragraphs 12 and 14 above) it considers that there is no objective justification to continue to examine the complaints and that it is thus appropriate to apply Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention which allows it to “strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ...the matter has been resolved...”.

20.  To be able to conclude that this provision applies, the Court must answer two questions in turn: firstly, it must ask whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicants still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed (see Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, § 48, 7 December 2007, and Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 42, 24 October 2002).

21.  Concerning the first question, it observes that the first applicant had left E.L. school in 2011 (see paragraph 8 above), which effectively ended the situation complained of, as well as any obligations on the part of that school to provide reasonable accommodation for his disability.

22.  As regards the second question, it is noted that teacher S. was convicted and sentenced to a suspended prison term for the treatment inflicted upon the first applicant during his stay at E.L. school (see paragraph 10 above). The courts declared in unequivocal terms that the first applicant had been mistreated and discriminated against at E.L. school and his dignity had been affected (see paragraphs 10, 12 and 14 above). Moreover, the courts awarded the first applicant compensation in amount proportionate to the level of responsibility of those involved (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above). The second and third applicants did not seek additional compensation on their behalf (see paragraphs 9, 11 and 13 above).

23.  Admittedly, the compensation for non-pecuniary damage awarded to the first applicant is lower than the Court usually awards if it finds a violation of the Convention in cases similar to the present one (see, for instance, mutatis mutandis, F.O. v. Croatia, no. 29555/13, §§ 89, 103, 104 and 108, 22 April 2021, and Đorđević v. Croatia, no. 41526/10, §§ 149-50, 153 and 172, ECHR 2012). That said, it must reiterate that it is not required, for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter, also be granted compensation (see Vadalà v. Italy (dec.), no. 14656/15, § 36, 7 November 2023). Finally, no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires the Court to continue the examination of the complaints at issue under Article 37 § 1 in fine.

24.  The Court thus concludes that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 November 2024.

 Simeon Petrovski Tim Eicke
 Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

List of applicants:
Application no. 44654/18

No.

Applicant’s Name

Gender

Year of birth

Place of residence

1.

M. C.

M

1999

Bucharest

2.

D.M.C.

F

1967

Bucharest

3.

R.M.C.

M

1968

Bucharest