CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECGRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 9 juillet 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5752D6FA { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps } .sAEF89E23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s157F70F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB6DE60E0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .sDDFF39D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s786E7C66 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s4EA85936 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .s92AA9940 { width:169.07pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s734AA7BF { width:171.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } GRAND CHAMBER DECISION Application no. 42219/07 Răzvan Mihai GHERGHINA against Romania The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 9 July 2015 as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Dean Spielmann, President,   Josep Casadevall,   Guido Raimondi,   Mark Villiger,   Ineta Ziemele,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Luis López Guerra,   Ledi Bianku,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Kristina Pardalos,   Paul Mahoney,   Aleš Pejchal,   Johannes Silvis,   Ksenija Turković,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 September 2007, Having regard to the partial decision of 6 March 2012, Having regard to the decision of 14 January 2014 by which the Chamber of the Third Section to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention), Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having regard to the third-party comments submitted by the International Disability Alliance, the European Disability Forum and the Romanian National Disability Council, Having regard to the parties’ oral submissions at the hearing on 12   November 2014, Having deliberated in private on 12 November 2014 and 9 July 2015, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Răzvan Mihai Gherghina, is a Romanian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Başcov-Valea Ursului. His application to the Court was lodged on 20   September 2007. He was successively represented before the Court by his aunt, Ms T. Radi, and, after 4 May 2012, by Interights and Mr C. Cojocariu, a lawyer practising in Orpington (United Kingdom). At the hearing on 12 November 2014 the applicant was also represented by Mr   H.A. Rusu and Mr J. Damamme, counsel. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the hearing they were also represented by Ms I. Popa and Mr D. Dumitrache, counsel. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     In 2001 the applicant had an accident in which he suffered spinal injuries resulting in severe locomotor impairment of the lower limbs. He was treated in hospital from 19 August to 28   September 2002 and from 11   August to 26   October 2003. The doctors found that he had paraplegia, as well as exostosis (abnormal proliferation of bone tissue) of one rib. 5.     In the months following the accident, the applicant had to use a wheelchair to move about. The Disability Assessment Commission issued a certificate attesting that he had a severe disability, which meant that he was legally entitled to the services of a personal assistant. 6.     Subsequently, his aunt, a professional medical assistant, took him into her home and implemented his motor rehabilitation programme, thereby assuming the role of his personal assistant; as a result his physical condition improved and he gradually became able to move about without a wheelchair on flat surfaces, either assisted by the people around him or supporting himself on handrails. Since 2005 he has been able to drive a vehicle that has been specially adapted in view of his locomotor impairments. 1.     The applicant’s attempts to study for a higher-education degree 7.     On the date of his accident, the applicant was enrolled as a first-year student in management and marketing at Constantin Brâncoveanu University in Piteşti, a private university accredited by the Ministry of Education and Research with some 3,000 students and several branches across the country. 8.     The parties’ accounts differ in part as to the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s studies at this and other Romanian universities. (a)     The applicant’s studies at Constantin Brâncoveanu University, Piteşti (i)     The applicant’s version of events 9.     While the applicant was studying at Constantin Brâncoveanu University in Piteşti (from 2001 to 2008), most lectures and seminars took place in a building (building A) which was inaccessible to people with restricted mobility because there was a long flight of stairs at the entrance and no lift to the upper floors. 10.     The applicant’s mother went to the university on several occasions between 2001 and 2006 to ask the dean when he intended to make the buildings accessible to disabled people. The dean promised her that building B would be accessible by the start of the 2006/07 academic year. In the meantime, he gave permission for the applicant to sit examinations at home and, by verbal agreement, exempted him from the compulsory attendance requirements for lectures and seminars. 11.     At the end of the 2006/07 academic year, the dean stopped allowing the applicant to sit examinations at home. The faculty management offered the applicant only one option for continuing his studies, namely repeating his third year under the distance learning programme ( cursuri fără frecvenţă ). This change of programme proposed by the university made no difference to the applicant’s situation: he still had to sit his examinations at home and study on his own, without any contact with other students or the academic staff. Realising that he was not deriving any real benefit from the distance learning programme offered by the university, the applicant dropped out of the course. He then tried to find another solution that would be better suited to his needs and expectations. (ii)     The Government’s version of events 12.     Work was begun in 2007 to provide access routes for people with restricted mobility, following the enactment of Law no.   448/2006 on protection and promotion of the rights of people with disabilities. In addition, the university offered the applicant various solutions taking into account his particular circumstances throughout his time there, thus enabling him to continue his studies after his accident. In particular, it granted him several extensions of his first year of studies (the applicant was enrolled on the first year of his course for 2001/02, 2002/03 and 2003/04), exempted him from attending compulsory lectures and seminars and allowed him to sit examinations at home. 13.     In 2004/05 the applicant was enrolled as a second-year student at the same university. He again sat the examinations in the presence of a lecturer who came to his home at his request, and passed twelve of the thirteen modules for the year. 14.     In 2005/06 the applicant was enrolled on the third year of the course, subject to a requirement to pass the modules he had not completed for the previous years. For the 2006/07 academic year, the university suggested that he transfer to the distance learning programme ( cursuri fără frecvenţă ), which it felt would be better suited to his needs in view of his mobility impairments. The applicant agreed and was transferred to the programme on 29   September 2006. At the end of the year he again sat examinations in the presence of a lecturer who came to his home at his request, but he passed only two modules. 15.     At the end of the fourth year of the course (2007/08), on which he was enrolled despite not having achieved a total of nineteen modules, the applicant did not make a request for lecturers to come to his home so that he could sit his examinations. Accordingly, having failed to accumulate sufficient credits to complete this year of the course, he was excluded from the university by a decision of 15   September 2008. (b)     The applicant’s studies at the Ecological University of Bucharest (i)     The applicant’s version of events 16.     In September 2010, having heard that the law faculty of the Ecological University of Bucharest had an access ramp, the applicant enrolled to study there after receiving assurances from the university authorities that the premises were accessible for people with restricted mobility. However, he discovered in practice that although disabled access to the ground floor was indeed possible via a ramp, the lift to the rooms on the other floors of the building was so narrow that wheelchair users could not be accompanied by their personal assistant. In addition, the buildings where the lectures took place did not have accessible toilets for people with restricted mobility, which meant that he had to go home whenever he needed the toilet. 17.     Since the student halls of residence at the Ecological University of Bucharest were not equipped for people with restricted mobility, the applicant had no option but to rent an expensive flat in Bucharest city centre for him and his aunt, who as his personal assistant accompanied him wherever he went. 18.     The daily journey from the applicant’s flat to the university was very difficult, as the public transport facilities and pavements were generally not adapted to the needs of people with restricted mobility. 19.     These various obstacles caused him to feel humiliated and mentally and physically exhausted, and eventually he stopped attending classes and went back to live in his home town. (ii)     The Government’s version of events 20.     Improvements to make the law faculty of the Ecological University of Bucharest accessible to people with restricted mobility were started in 2007 and completed in 2008. 21.     Following an inspection of the university in 2012, the administrative authority responsible for monitoring compliance with accessibility requirements noted in its report that sanitary facilities accessible to disabled people were in the process of being installed. 22.     The reason why the applicant was excluded from the university at the end of the 2010/11 academic year was that he had not paid all the enrolment fees. (c)     The applicant’s studies at the State University of Piteşti (i)     The applicant’s version of events 23.     Before enrolling at the State University of Piteşti, the applicant received assurances from the university authorities that the buildings were accessible and that the university was willing to find solutions accommodating his specific needs. However, on starting the course he discovered that the laboratories of the psychology faculty and the psychological counsellor’s office were on the upper floors and thus completely inaccessible to people with restricted mobility as there were no lifts in the building. Furthermore, to enter the building he often had to enlist the help of bystanders to carry him inside. 24.     In letters dated 1 November 2011 and 21 March 2012 the applicant asked the university rector to take measures to ensure that he could pursue his studies on an equal footing with the other students. In the letters he pointed out that despite the assurances he had received from the university authorities when enrolling on his course, most lectures and seminars took place in buildings to which he had no access. He noted in particular that the ramp that was supposed to provide access to the entrance of building S was unusable because it was obstructed by concrete blocks and weeds, and that another ramp between two of the faculty buildings was likewise impracticable because it was too steep and did not have a handrail. He added that because of these barriers, he had had to ask other students to carry him in his wheelchair to the lecture rooms; the furniture in the lecture rooms was itself unsuitable as he was unable to reach the desks from his wheelchair to take notes during lectures. He also complained that there were no dedicated parking spaces for students with restricted mobility and that he was unable to use the special parking spaces in the courtyard, since these were reserved for university staff. 25.     On 22 June 2012 the applicant again wrote to the rector, criticising the lack of an effective system for displaying information, from which he could have ascertained the buildings in which his examinations and classes were to be held, and which lectures and seminars he could attend because they were in accessible locations. He complained that no measures had been taken to help him catch up with the lectures he had missed through no fault of his own. He stated that he could no longer bear to be told that some locations were inaccessible to him because of the lack of suitable facilities accommodating his disability, adding that he did not wish to relive the same humiliation he had experienced on account of his condition at the other universities he had previously attended. 26.     At the end of the 2011/12 academic year the applicant was excluded from the university without prior warning, on the grounds that he had not accumulated sufficient credits in the examinations to be able to progress to the second year of his course. (ii)     The Government’s version of events 27.     In 2011 the State University of Piteşti enrolled the applicant, at his request, on the first year of a psychology degree. 28.     To examine the letters which the applicant had sent to the rector and reply to the various points he had raised (see paragraph 24 above), the State University of Piteşti set up a panel of three lecturers. In a letter dated 19   April 2012 the panel informed the applicant that two access ramps had been completed, a third was in the process of being installed and a lift providing access to the upper floors of building I at the university would be available within a year or two. They noted that some of the compulsory activities for psychology students unfortunately had to take place in rooms on the upper floors of the building, these being the only rooms with the necessary specialist equipment. They pointed out that the university had taken steps towards installing a network to provide videoconferencing access (via Skype) to the activities in question, a facility which would be available to the applicant. They also stated that they would examine the applicant’s question concerning parking difficulties and advised him to seek permission from the university authorities to use the parking spaces reserved for staff, stating his reasons for the request. Lastly, they indicated that they were looking into ways of ensuring that the lecture rooms were equipped with furniture accommodating his disability so that he could take notes in better conditions. 29.     The applicant was excluded from the university at the end of the 2011/12 academic year because he had not accumulated sufficient credits to progress to the second year. 30.     The Government cited the example of another disabled student who had successfully completed his degree at the same university in 2007, and of two other disabled students who were currently studying there. 2.     The applicant’s access to other buildings for public use and further action taken by him 31.     The applicant stated that the courts and public authorities responsible for examining any complaints by disabled people – in particular, the buildings housing the Piteşti Court of First Instance ( judecătoria ) and County Court – had themselves been inaccessible to people with restricted mobility at the time of his fruitless attempts to study for a higher-education degree. 32.     The applicant provided the Court with a number of statements made in a non-judicial context by disabled people living in Romania, describing the difficulties they had faced, particularly when attempting to pursue higher education. A.B., for example, mentioned in a statement dated April 2014 that she had had to abandon her studies at the University of Piteşti because of the lack of access ramps. M.T. noted in a statement in 2014 that throughout the seven years during which she was enrolled as a student at Ovidius University of Constanţa, access to the university premises had been restricted by a barrier, followed by a flight of stairs with an excessively steep access ramp next to it (she needed two other people to help her up the ramp, one pulling her wheelchair and the other pushing it). The lectures had taken place on the second floor, which was not accessible by lift. She had had to be carried upstairs to the lecture rooms by other students because the lecturer had refused to move the class to one of the ground floor rooms even though they were available, claiming that the overhead projector was too heavy. M.T. stated that when she had reported this problem to the dean of the faculty, he had declined responsibility and she had been shuttled from one person to another. P.B., who had a severe locomotor disability and had graduated from the psychology faculty of Ovidius University of Constanţa, mentioned in a statement dated April 2014 that in the absence of any access ramps and lifts, she had had to rely on the assistance of other students to enter the buildings and go to the lecture rooms. 33.     The Government acknowledged that the Piteşti Court of First Instance and County Court had not been fitted with an access ramp for people with restricted mobility at the time of the applicant’s attempts to study for a higher-education degree. In a letter of 14 May 2012 the president of the Court of First Instance had stated that, because of a long flight of stairs and a slope exceeding the maximum permitted gradient, wheelchair access to the ground floor or upper floors of the building was impossible. The Government further noted that following his accident, the applicant had instituted several sets of proceedings in the domestic courts, either alone or with the assistance of a lawyer, for example to challenge a decision not to prosecute a person he had accused of fraud, or to claim damages from an insurance company. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     National legislation on protection of people with disabilities (a)     The Constitution 34.     Article 16 of the Constitution provides that all Romanian citizens are equal before the law, without any special privileges or discrimination. Article   50 guarantees special protection for people with disabilities. (b)     Government Emergency Ordinance no.   102/1999 35.     Government Emergency Ordinance no.   102/1999 of 29   June 1999 on special protection of people with disabilities, which entered into force on 1   July 1999, provided in Article 11 that buildings of public institutions, buildings used for cultural, sports and recreational purposes, housing built from public funds, public transport facilities, telephone booths and access routes were to be equipped in such a way as to allow unrestricted access for people with disabilities. The appropriate renovation work was to be carried out in stages: – by 31 December 2003, work to ensure unrestricted access to buildings for public or cultural use, sports or recreational facilities, shops, restaurants, head offices of public service providers and public highways was to be completed; – by 31 December 2005, local public services had to have installed audible and visual signal systems at pedestrian crossings, and appropriate signs on public highways and in public transport vehicles; – by 31 December 2010, all public transport vehicles had to have been made accessible to people with disabilities. Implementation of the special protection measures for disabled people was to be organised, coordinated and supervised by the State Secretariat for People with Disabilities, a central public authority reporting to the Government (Article 3 of the Ordinance). However, there were no specific provisions or procedures governing how interested parties could apply to that authority or to the courts. 36 .     Government Emergency Ordinance no. 102/1999 was subsequently amended and supplemented on several occasions. Law no.   343/2004 specified that Article 11 of the Ordinance now required both public and private buildings to ensure unrestricted access for people with disabilities. It made non-compliance with Article 11 of the Ordinance a minor offence punishable by a fine. (c)     Law no. 448 of 6   December 2006 37.     Government Emergency Ordinance no.   102/1999 was repealed by Law no. 448 of 6   December 2006 on protection and promotion of the rights of people with disabilities, which entered into force on 18   December 2006. Article 61 of this Law provides: “1.     Buildings for public use, access routes, residential premises built from public funds, public transport vehicles and stations, taxis, railway passenger coaches and platforms at principal stations, car parks, public streets and highways, public telephones and information and communication facilities shall be brought into line with the statutory provisions in order to ensure access for people with disabilities. 2.     Heritage buildings and historic monuments shall be adapted in keeping with their architectural characteristics. 3.     The costs of the work shall be borne, as appropriate, from the budget of the central or local public authorities or from private equity companies’ own resources.” Article 63 of the Law sets 31 December 2007 as the deadline for local authorities to make the necessary improvements to pedestrian crossings on public streets (in particular by indicating their presence through tactile paving), and 31   December 2010 as the deadline for providing unrestricted access to public transport (for example, by ensuring the accessibility of public transport vehicles, parking areas near public transport facilities, and principal stations). 38.     Chapter IX of Law no. 448/2006, entitled “Responsibility”, reads as follows: Article 99 “1.     The following acts shall constitute minor offences and shall be punished as such: (a)     failure to comply with the provisions of Article 13 § 1, Articles 16-18 and Articles 61-67 of the Law ..., punishable by a fine of between 3,000 and 9,000 lei; ... 2.     The establishment of the minor offence provided for in paragraph 1 (a) [above] and the imposition of the corresponding fine shall be carried out by an official of the National Authority for Disabled Persons duly authorised by the Authority’s president. ... 4.     The amounts received in fines shall be paid to the State budget. 5.     The provisions of this Article shall be supplemented by Government Ordinance no. 2/2001 on the legal regime for minor offences, approved by Law no.   180/2002, as subsequently amended and supplemented.” 2.     Relevant provisions of the Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure (a)     The Civil Code 39 .     At the material time the provisions of the Civil Code on liability in tort and the effects of obligations were worded as follows: Article 998 “Any act committed by a person that causes damage to another shall render the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to make reparation for it.” Article 999 “Everyone shall be liable for damage he has caused not only through his own acts but also through his failure to act or his negligence.” Article 1073 “An obligee shall be entitled to performance of the obligation and, failing that, to the payment of damages.” Article 1075 “Any obligation to act or refrain from acting shall give rise to an obligation to pay damages in the event of its non-performance by the obligor.” Article 1077 “If an obligation to act is not honoured, the obligee may be entitled to perform it himself, at the obligor’s expense.” 40.     Similar provisions are to be found in the new Civil Code, which entered into force on 1 October 2011 (Article 1349 on liability in tort and Articles 1527 and 1528 on the performance of obligations). (b)     Code of Civil Procedure 41 .     At the material time the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing the possibility of requesting interim measures in cases of emergency were worded as follows: Article 581 “1.     The court may order interim measures in cases of emergency, to preserve a right that would be impaired in the event of a delay, to prevent imminent and irreparable damage, or to remove any obstacles that might arise at the enforcement stage. 2.     A request for an interim measure must be lodged with the court with jurisdiction to determine the merits of the case. 3.     An order [for an interim measure] may be delivered even in the absence of the parties ... The court shall examine the request as a matter of urgency and priority. The public delivery of its decision may be adjourned for no more than twenty-four hours, and the statement of reasons for the order shall be issued no later than forty-eight hours after delivery. 4.     The order shall be provisional and enforceable. ...” 3.     Relevant provisions of the Administrative Proceedings Act (Law   no.   554/2004) 42 .     The relevant provisions of the Administrative Proceedings Act (Law no.   554/2004) are worded as follows: Article 1 “Anyone who considers that a public authority has harmed his rights or legitimate interests as a result of an administrative measure or a failure to respond within the statutory time-limit to a request he has submitted to it may ask the competent administrative court to set aside the measure, recognise the right or legitimate interest in question and afford redress for the damage he has sustained. The legitimate interest may be either private or public.” Article 2 “For the purposes of this Act: (i) an unjustified refusal to respond to a request occurs when an authority, acting ultra vires , expressly states that it does not intend to respond to a person’s request;   (ii) ultra vires means a breach by the public authorities, in exercising their discretion, of the limits of their statutory competence or of citizens’ rights and freedoms.” Article 8 “1.   Anyone who considers that an administrative measure has harmed his statutory rights or legitimate interests, who is not satisfied with the action taken on a complaint filed by him [with the competent authorities], or who does not receive a reply to a request within the time-limit specified in Article 2 § 1 (h) [thirty days from the registration of the request unless otherwise specified by law], may apply to the administrative courts to have the measure entirely or partially set aside and to be awarded compensation for any losses and, where appropriate, non-pecuniary damage. Anyone who considers that his rights or legitimate interests have been harmed as a result of a failure to respond to a request within the statutory time-limit, an unjustified failure to respond to a request or a refusal to take an administrative measure necessary for the exercise or protection of a right or legitimate interest may apply to the administrative courts.” 4.     Examples of proceedings instituted by disabled people complaining of lack of access to buildings for public use 43 .     In March 2014 the Government asked thirteen of the fifteen courts of appeal in Romania, as well as the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Bucharest County Court, to provide them with examples of the domestic courts’ practice regarding similar issues to those raised in the case brought before the Court by Mr Gherghina. The majority of these courts stated that they did not have any examples of domestic practice in relation to such issues. 44.     The following paragraphs summarise three examples submitted by the Government (see paragraphs 65-67 below) of proceedings arising from actions brought at domestic level by individuals complaining that public highways and certain buildings in Romania were not accessible to disabled people. (a)     Proceedings concerning alleged inaction on the part of the public authorities (Ms E.P.) 45.     On 5 October 2005 Ms E.P., who had become paraplegic following an accident, brought an action in the Vâlcea County Court against the Romanian State through the ANPH (the public authority responsible for matters concerning special protection of people with disabilities), complaining that it had refused without any justification to secure her rights under Article 11 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 102/1999 and to engage in the process of making public areas accessible so that she could use them as she was entitled to do by law. In particular, she sought an order from the court requiring the State to make provision for disabled access to buildings housing public institutions and to public highways, and to pay her 10,000,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage she claimed to have sustained as a result of all the barriers she had encountered since 1 January 2004, by which date the accessibility improvements should have been completed. 46.     In a judgment of 10 November 2009 the Civil Division of the Vâlcea County Court acknowledged that Ms E.P.’s access to certain buildings and to public highways was impossible or very difficult, a state of affairs that had had adverse consequences for her health. On the basis of Articles 998 and 999 of the Civil Code as in force at the time, it ordered the State, the Vâlcea County Buildings Inspectorate, the ANPH, the Bucharest State Buildings Inspectorate, the Craiova Regional Buildings Inspectorate and the Vâlcea Directorate General for Social Assistance and Child Protection to pay Ms   E.P., jointly and severally, the sum of 42,363 Romanian lei (RON) in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage she had sustained. 47.     That judgment was upheld in a judgment of 17 March 2010 by the Piteşti Court of Appeal and in a final judgment of 24 March 2011 by the Civil Section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. (b)     Proceedings in the national courts concerning alleged inaction on the part of a private legal entity – a shopping centre (Ms S.L.) 48.     On 8 February 2011 Ms S.L. brought an action in the Bucharest Court of First Instance (Civil Division) against a shopping centre, seeking an order requiring it to make provision for disabled parking spaces conforming to the requirements of Law no. 448/2006. She also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 49.     In a judgment of 4 July 2012 the court dismissed Ms S.L.’s application for an order requiring the creation of special parking spaces, observing that at least since the date on which it had inspected the site (20   February 2012), the parking spaces for disabled people complied with the requirements of Law no. 448/2006. In addition, finding that the conditions for liability in tort were satisfied in that no disabled parking facilities had been in place at the time when Ms S.L. had applied to it, the court ordered the shopping centre, in accordance with Articles 998 and 999 of the Civil Code, to make good the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the claimant, which it assessed at RON   2,000. The judgment was subject to appeal. According to the Government, it has become final. (c)     Proceedings concerning the failure of an association of co-owners to make the communal areas of a block of flats accessible (Ms   N.V.) 50.     On 17 June 2013 Ms N.V., a disabled person, made an urgent application to the Galaţi Court of First Instance (Civil Division) for an order requiring the association of co-owners of the block of flats where she lived to make the communal areas of the building accessible by moving the front door and removing a doorstep, both of which were currently hindering her access to the building. She submitted that she was suffering from illness and needed to make regular visits to different doctors and be kept under strict medical supervision. She asked that the adjustments be carried out as a matter of urgency on an interim basis until the merits of the case were determined in a separate action she had brought against the same association. 51 .     After the court found against her (in a judgment of 23 July 2013), she appealed. In a final judgment of 10 October 2013 the Galaţi County Court allowed her appeal and ordered the co-owners’ association to move the front door and remove the doorstep at the entrance to the building. It specified that these measures were provisional and would remain applicable only until the Galaţi Court of First Instance had given its decision on the merits of the case. 52.     While the proceedings were pending in the Galaţi County Court, the respondent co-owners’ association had argued that the accessibility requirements set forth in Law no.   448/2006 could not be relied on against it since it was not a public authority and therefore did not have standing to defend the claim. The court replied that the summary nature of urgent proceedings did not permit it to embark on an analysis of this issue, which should instead be addressed by the Galaţi Court of First Instance when examining the merits of the case. The proceedings on the merits resulted in a judgment of 18 December 2014 in which the court dismissed Ms N.V.’s action against the co-owners’ association as ill-founded. Ms   N.V. appealed against that judgment, and the proceedings are still pending. 5.     Domestic legislation and practice concerning higher education 53.     The preamble to the National Education Act (Law no. 1/2011) lays down general principles to the effect that the purpose of the national education system is to ensure the free, full and harmonious development of individuals, so that they can form their own independent personality and a set of values enabling them to flourish and fulfil their potential, and to take part in and integrate into community life. 54.     Article 139 of the Act provides that university studies may take the following forms: (a)     full-time courses ( cursuri de zi ), where students are present every working day of the week to attend classes and/or take part in research work and have direct contact with lecturers or research supervisors at the university; (b)     part-time courses ( cursuri cu frecvenţă redusă ), where activities requiring direct contact at the university between students and lecturers or research supervisors are arranged periodically in blocks, being supplemented by other study methods characteristic of distance learning; (c)     distance learning courses ( cursuri fără frecvenţă ), which typically involve the use of electronic communication techniques and information technology and are based on self-study and self-assessment, supplemented by tutorial guidance. 55.     Article 118 provides that all forms of discrimination in the education system are prohibited. Disabled students are entitled to have the use of access routes accommodating their disabilities in all university buildings and premises; they must be able to take part in academic, social and cultural activities under normal conditions. 56 .     The practice of the domestic courts indicates that a decision to exclude a student from a university is treated as an “administrative measure” within the meaning of Article 1 of Law no.   554/2005, and may be challenged in the administrative courts, which have jurisdiction to set aside such a decision (see, for example, the judgment of 17 May 2012 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (Administrative Disputes Section), the final judgment of 10   September 2008 of the Buzău   County Court and the final judgment of 16 January 2008 of the Craiova Court of Appeal). COMPLAINTS 57.     The applicant complained, under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, that it was impossible for him to pursue his university studies in or near to his home town, because of the lack of facilities accommodating his disability in the buildings housing the lecture rooms. Relying in substance on Article 14 of the Convention, he also claimed to be the victim of discrimination on the ground of his physical disability. He argued that this state of affairs prevented him from taking the degree course of his choice with a view to securing employment and a decent standard of living. 58.     In his application form the applicant also relied on Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. He alleged that the lack of facilities accommodating his disability had led to his being confined to his home and deprived of the opportunity to develop relations with the outside world. Submitting that he had been mentally and psychologically traumatised by his lack of access to university and to other buildings for public use, he complained that he had been forced to spend many years alone in his home, away from society, and argued that his loneliness and the lack of information provided to him had caused him feelings of insecurity. THE LAW PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION 59.     In its partial decision of 6   March 2012 the Chamber held that the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention would be more appropriately examined under Article 8, read separately or in conjunction with Article 14 (see Gherghina v. Romania (dec.), no.   42219/07, §   28, 6   March 2012). The Grand Chamber does not find it necessary to call into question the Chamber’s approach in this regard. It reiterates that since the Court is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, it does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a government (see, among other authorities, Guerra and Others v. Italy , 19   February 1998, §   44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no.   29217/12, § 55, ECHR 2014; and Aksu v.   Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, § 43, ECHR 2012). 60.     Accordingly, the relevant provisions in relation to the applicant’s complaints are the following: Article 8 “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Article 14 “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 “No person shall be denied the right to education. ...” I.     PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF NON-EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The Government 61.     The Government contended that the applicant had not made use of the remedies available to him under domestic law. Referring to Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 17153/11 and 29   other cases, 25 March 2014), they submitted that the Romanian legal system provided for a wide range of administrative and judicial remedies that were fully accessible to anyone wishing to assert his or her rights. 62.     In their written observations the Government stated that the applicant could have obtained redress for the situation complained of by applying to the authorities responsible for monitoring compliance with the accessibility requirements laid down in the special legislation on protection of people with disabilities. Thus, they submitted that the applicant should have filed a complaint with the Directorate General of Social Assistance and Child Protection (whose task was to coordinate and evaluate efforts to protect disabled people’s rights), the Ministry of Labour, Family Affairs, Social Protection and Elderly People (which included a Directorate for the Protection of People with Disabilities, with responsibility for coordinating social protection activities at national level, devising strategies and protection standards and monitoring the implementation of the relevant legal requirements), the State Buildings Inspectorate (responsible for reviewing compliance with the legal requirement to make improvements to buildings for public use), or the Social Inspection Agency (a specialised body of the central government). The Government asserted that if these authorities found that a particular situation did not comply with the statutory accessibility requirements, they could either set deadlines for ensuring compliance or impose a fine, together with an obligation to remedy the shortcomings observed; follow-up visits were conducted to ensure that this obligation was honoured. 63.     At the hearing the Government added that although Government Emergency Ordinance no. 102/99 and Law no. 448/2006 did not expressly provide for a complaints procedure open to individuals, the authorities responsible for ensuring compliance with the legal requirements were under an obligation to respond to all requests, complaints, applications or proposals made by citizens. They pointed out that if the applicant had complained to the authorities of a failure to observe the requirements laid down in the special legislation on protection of disabled people and had received no reply, or an inadequate reply, within a time-limit of thirty days, he would have been entitled to apply to the administrative courts under Article 1 of the Administrative Proceedings Act (Law no. 554/2004). 64.     The Government further submitted that an action in the administrative courts would also have constituted an appropriate remedy in the present case for challenging the decisions by which the applicant had been excluded from the various universities at which he had been successively enrolled. They contended that if the courts had set those decisions aside, the applicant would have been entitled to a review of his academic circumstances by the authorities of the universities concerned. 65.     Next, the Government argued that if administrative remedies had not produced the desired outcome for the applicant, he could have turned to the civil courts, as Romanian civil law offered remedies which were capable of directly affording redress for the situation complained of. In support of their argument, the Government cited Articles 1073 and 1077 of the Civil Code as in force at the material time, which, taken together with the provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 102/1999 or Law no.   448/2006 (depending on the time of the applicant’s application to the civil courts), could have formed a legal basis for bringing a court action of this kind with a view to securing compliance with the accessibility requirements laid down in the special legislation. Citing the example of the judgment of 10   October 2013 in which the Galaţi County Court had ordered an association of co ‑ owners of a block of flats, in urgent proceedings, to take interim measures to ensure that a disabled person living in the building had suitable access to it (see paragraph 51 above), they argued by instituting proceedings of that nature, the applicant could have secured an order for the higher-education institutions he had attended to take practical measures to provide him with access to their buildings. 66.     The Government added that in so far as the applicant claimed to be the victim of an unlawful act resulting from inaction or an omission on the part of entities with a legal obligation to take action to ensure accessibility, he could have relied on the provisions of the Civil Code concerning liability in tort. As an example of domestic practice, they cited the final judgment of 24   March 2011 in which the High Court of Cassation and Justice had awarded compensation to a person with paraplegia who had instituted judicial proceedings at national level (see paragraphs 46 and 47 above). 67.     The Government then cited the judgment of 4 July 2012 in which the Bucharest Court of First Instance had held a shopping centre liable in tort for failing to adapt its public car park to the needs of disabled people, and ordered it to pay damages to the person who had brought the action (see paragraph 49 above). 68.     In reply to the allegations of discrimination made by the applicant in his complaints to the Court, the Government observed that he could have filed a complaint with the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD), followed, if appropriate, by an application to the courts. They pointed out that when examining similar complaints to those raised by the applicant, the CNCD had decided either to impose a fine or to issue a warning, depending on the seriousness of the discriminatory acts it had found. They added that under Government Ordinance no.   137/2000, allegations of discrimination could be brought directly before the national courts by means of an ordinary action. By bringing such an action, the applicant could have had the discriminatory situation brought to an end and been awarded damages. 69.     The Government submitted in more general terms that the applicant could not justify his passive attitude by claiming that he had been too vulnerable to avail himself of domestic remedies. They observed that at different times in his life, he had, without any apparent difficulty, pursued other types of administrative and judicial procedures provided for by domestic law (see paragraph 33 in fine above). They accordingly submitted that there had been no insurmountable obstacle, whether legal or factual, to