Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 28 February 2019
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 44654/18
M.C. and Others
against Romania
lodged on 13 September 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the authorities’ response to the allegations that the first applicant, a child suffering from a mental disorder, was ill-treated and bullied at school by teachers and other pupils. It also concerns the right to respect for the private and family life of the second and third applicants, the first applicant’s parents.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has the first applicant, a child diagnosed with oppositional disorder and emotional delay, been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment at school by his teachers and classmates, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Đorđević v. Croatia, no. 41526/10, § 138, ECHR 2012)? In addition, did the State authorities address the issue of bullying at school adequately?
2. Was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, D.M.D. v. Romania, no. 23022/13, § 48, 3 October 2017), in particular with regard to the lack of any award of compensation in favour of the first applicant in the following decisions:
(a) decision no. 946/A of 15 June 2017, by the Bucharest Court of Appeal rendered in case no. 8773/303/2016 (criminal proceedings);
(b) decision no. 180/A of 22 January 2018 of the Bucharest County Court rendered in case no. 17739/303/2013 (civil proceedings); and
(c) decision no. 1720 of 7 March 2014 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal rendered in case no. 46671/3/CA/2011 (administrative proceedings).
In addition, was the issue of bullying at school adequately addressed during the investigations?
3. Did the first applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected in so far as the domestic courts refused to hear as evidence the private recordings made by the first applicant during the episodes of abuse he suffered at school? This concerns:
(a) the civil proceedings – notably the interlocutory judgment of 18 September 2015 by the Bucharest District Court in case no. 17739/303/2013); and
(b) the administrative proceedings – notably the interlocutory judgment of 31 January 2013 by the Bucharest County Court in case no. 46671/3/CA/2011 and the final decision no. 1720 cited above?
4. Did the first applicant have access to a court, in so far as his claims for compensation were concerned, bearing in mind that, on the one hand, the criminal courts (decision no. 37 of 26 January 2017 by the Bucharest District Court in case no. 8773/303/2016 and decision no. 946 cited above) refused to deal with the matter because the civil courts had already examined it in the first instance (decision no. 2124 of 11 March 2016 by the Bucharest District Court in case no. 17739/303/2013), and, on the other hand, the civil courts subsequently failed to take into account the criminal courts’ finding of guilt concerning the ill-treatment suffered by the first applicant at the hands of his class teacher (decision no. 180 cited above).
5. Has there been a violation of the right to respect for the private and family life of the second and third applicants (the first applicant’s parents), within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? They allege that they were insulted and blamed by the courts for having caused the first applicant’s problems, and that their childrearing skills were questioned. According to them, they were pressured to remove their son from the state school. Moreover, they witnessed their son’s suffering caused by abuse and indifference and, following his expulsion from the public system, they had to make substantial financial sacrifices to support the first applicant’s education in a private school.
6. Has the first applicant been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, have the State authorities made reasonable accommodation to allow the first applicant to pursue his education in a mainstream school, with due consideration of his special behavioural needs? In addition, were his special needs properly taken into account when he was allegedly expelled from, or forced to leave, the public schools, on the ground of his bad behaviour?
7. Have the applicants suffered discrimination, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on the ground of the first applicant’s disability (see, for the second and third applicants, Guberina v. Croatia, no. 23682/13, § 78, 22 March 2016)?
8. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
PUBLIC APPENDIX
LIST OF APPLICANTS
| No. | Firstname LASTNAME | Birth year | Nationality | Place of residence | Representative |
| 1. | M.C. | 1999 | Romanian | Bucharest | C. Cojocariu |
| 2. | D.M.C. | 1967 | Romanian | Bucharest | C. Cojocariu |
| 3. | R.M.C. | 1968 | Romanian | Bucharest | C. Cojocariu |
Leave a Reply