Communicated on 28 February 2019<\/p>\n
FOURTH SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 44654\/18
\nM.C. and Others
\nagainst Romania
\nlodged on 13 September 2018<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n The application concerns the authorities\u2019 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\u2019s parents.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Has 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, \u0110or\u0111evi\u0107 v. Croatia, no.\u00a041526\/10, \u00a7\u00a0138, ECHR 2012)? In addition, did the State authorities address the issue of bullying at school adequately?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Was 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, \u00a7 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:<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0decision no. 946\/A of 15 June 2017, by the Bucharest Court of Appeal rendered in case no. 8773\/303\/2016 (criminal proceedings);<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0decision no. 180\/A of 22 January 2018 of the Bucharest County Court rendered in case no. 17739\/303\/2013 (civil proceedings); and<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0decision no. 1720 of 7 March 2014 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal rendered in case no. 46671\/3\/CA\/2011 (administrative proceedings).<\/p>\n In addition, was the issue of bullying at school adequately addressed during the investigations?<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Did the first applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 \u00a7 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:<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0the civil proceedings \u2013 notably the interlocutory judgment of 18\u00a0September 2015 by the Bucharest District Court in case no.\u00a017739\/303\/2013); and<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0the administrative proceedings \u2013 notably the interlocutory judgment of 31 January 2013 by the Bucharest County Court in case no.\u00a046671\/3\/CA\/2011 and the final decision no. 1720 cited above?<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Did 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\u2019 finding of guilt concerning the ill-treatment suffered by the first applicant at the hands of his class teacher (decision no. 180 cited above).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been a violation of the right to respect for the private and family life of the second and third applicants (the first applicant\u2019s parents), within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? They allege that they were insulted and blamed by the courts for having caused the first applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s education in a private school.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Has 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?<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Have 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\u2019s disability (see, for the second and third applicants, Guberina v.\u00a0Croatia, no. 23682\/13, \u00a7 78, 22 March 2016)?<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Did 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?<\/p>\n PUBLIC APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nLIST OF APPLICANTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Firstname LASTNAME<\/strong><\/td>\n Birth year<\/strong><\/td>\n Nationality<\/strong><\/td>\n Place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n Representative<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/strong><\/td>\n M.C.<\/td>\n 1999<\/td>\n Romanian<\/td>\n Bucharest<\/td>\n C. Cojocariu<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/strong><\/td>\n D.M.C.<\/td>\n 1967<\/td>\n Romanian<\/td>\n Bucharest<\/td>\n C. Cojocariu<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/strong><\/td>\n R.M.C.<\/td>\n 1968<\/td>\n Romanian<\/td>\n Bucharest<\/td>\n C. Cojocariu<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n