CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sDC7C0B24 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt; font-size:11pt } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s9C3E97BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s910ECD9B { width:16.63pt; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5FCD3069 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC6C3E032 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC74C65DF { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic; color:#161616 } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .sA9C92997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .sF1474A11 { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6428E029 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; color:#403b3c } .sDDAB5F88 { font-family:Arial; color:#403b3c } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7BC87A4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB98869C { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC8CF739 { width:16.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7FC2D9E0 { width:145.1pt; display:inline-block } .s3907549D { width:29.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7BE5FA7D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4AA8B09A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF G.L. v. ITALY (Application no. 59751/15)   JUDGMENT   Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • Inability of an autistic child to receive specialist support at school as prescribed by law, for the first two years of primary schooling • Domestic law prescribing inclusive education for disabled children in ordinary schools with the support of specialised professionals • Domestic legislation providing in abstracto for making “reasonable accommodation” but lack of details on practical mode of implementation • Art 14 interpreted in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons and of European instruments • Difference of treatment due to the applicant’s disability • Argument of insufficient budgetary resources • Failure by the domestic authorities to determine the applicant’s real needs and possible solutions to enable her to attend primary school under equivalent conditions, as far as possible, to those enjoyed by other children, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden on the authorities • Serious discrimination in view of the importance of primary education • Lack of due diligence on the part of the domestic authorities   STRASBOURG 10 September 2020 FINAL   10/12/2020   This judgment became final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of G.L. v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ksenija Turković, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Aleš Pejchal,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Tim Eicke,   Jovan Ilievski,   Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   59751/15) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian national, Ms G.L. (“the applicant”), on 24 November 2015; the decision of the Section President not to have the applicant’s name disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court); Noting that on 16 March 2017 the Italian Government was notified of the application; Having deliberated in private on 10 September 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the fact that the applicant, a non-verbal autistic girl how is now thirteen years old, was unable to receive specialist support at school for her first two years of primary schooling (2010/2011 et 2011/2012). THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 2004 and lives in Eboli. She was represented before the Court by Mr A. L. (her father) and Ms M.E. D’Amico, a lawyer practising in Milan. 3.     The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their former Agent, Mrs Spatafora, and her former coagent Mrs M. E. D’Amico, a lawyer practising in Milan. 4.     The applicant was diagnosed with non-verbal autism. 5.     On account of her disability, when she started nursery school in 2007 she received learning support for 24 hours a week from a support teacher with specialised assistance, in accordance with section 13 of Law no.   104 of 1992. 6.     The specialised assistance service is aimed at helping children with disabilities to develop their autonomy and personal communication skills and to improve their learning processes, their relationships with others and their integration at school, so that they do not become marginalised. Thus the specialist assistant was responsible for improving the applicant’s integration and socialisation at school and in the classroom, as well as her autonomy (see paragraph 18 below). 7.     During her first year at primary school (2010-2011) the applicant was no longer in receipt of such specialist assistance. At the end of the school year it was decided that she should repeat the preparatory class (“CP”). 8.     On 10   August 2011, in advance of the new school year, the applicant’s parents requested that the Eboli municipality ensure that their daughter received the specialist assistance provided for in section 13 of Law no. 104 of 1992. Having received no reply from the municipal authorities, they reiterated their request on 30   January 2012. 9.     On 21   February 2012, in view of the authorities’ silence the applicant’s parents requested access to their daughter’s file. 10.     From January 2012 they paid for private specialist assistance so that their daughter could nevertheless receive educational support. 11.     On 19   March 2012 the authorities informed them that it would be difficult to organise specialist public assistance for the applicant again since it had only been scheduled up to the end of 2011, but that there was nonetheless a chance that she might shortly be in receipt of such assistance – this never transpired. 12.     The Government affirmed that the applicant had received support defrayed by the school. In that regard, they failed to present any document signed by the headmaster stating that since the applicant had not been in receipt of specialist educational facilities in the school years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, the school had provided her with basic assistance and physical aid and had tasked employees to provide material back-up to teaching staff. In support of those assertions the Government enclosed an invoice for 476.56   euros (EUR). 13.     The applicant observed that that the documents submitted by the Government failed to establish the veracity of its submissions. She pointed out, first of all, that the documents did not explain the type of assistance provided or the activities conducted, or whether the persons concerned had been competent and qualified to take care of an autistic child. She further submitted that the amount of the expenditure certified (EUR 476.56   for six employees, coming to an average outlay of EUR 80   per employee per year) showed that the support in question could certainly not have been considered as permanent. 14.     On 15   May 2012 the applicant’s parents, acting in her name and on her behalf, applied to the Administrative Court (the “TAR”) of the Region of Campania. Complaining of the fact that their daughter had been unable to receive the specialist assistance to which she had been entitled under section 13 of Law no.   104 of 1992, they sought a finding of failure to respect that right and asked the court to order the authorities to pay compensation to their daughter. 15.     By judgment of 27   November 2012 the TAR dismissed that application. It held that the municipality taken all the necessary action in time, and pointed out that the region had had to cope with a cut in resources allocated by the State. 16.     The applicant’s parents appealed to the State Council against that judgment. By judgment deposited with the registry on 26 May 2015, the latter dismissed their appeal. It held that the claim for damages had been vague and had failed to demonstrate a causal link between the lack of specialist assistance and the alleged damage. It also ruled that the region’s liability could not be incurred because it had had to cope with a cut in resources allocated by the State. It considered that there had been no reason to reimburse the applicant’s parents for the costs incurred in paying for private specialist assistance, since no negligence had been attributable to the authorities. Finally, as regards the request that the Eboli municipality be ordered to provide the assistance provided for by law, the State Council pointed out that the judge could only have issued an order to the authorities if the case had fallen under the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative court, which had not been the situation in the present case. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRATIC   UE Domestic legal system 17 .     Article   38 of the Constitution provides that persons with disabilities have a right to education and vocational training. 18 .     Framework Law no.   104 of 5   February 1992 on assistance for, the social integration of, and the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities (“Law no.   104 of 1992”) includes the following provisions: Article   3 – Entitled persons “1.     ’Person with a disability’ means anyone presenting a physical, mental or sensorial impairment, whether stabilised or evolutive, which causes difficulties in learning, relationships with others occupational integration and leads to a social handicap or marginalisation. ...” Article   8 – Social integration “The social inclusion and integration of the person with a disability shall be ensured by means of: ... d)     measures securing the disabled person’s rights to information and to education, particularly as regards educational facilities and technologies, programmes, specialist languages, evaluation tests and the availability of specially qualified personnel, including both teachers and non-teaching staff. ...” Article   12 – Right to education “... 2.     The right of persons with disabilities to education shall be guaranteed in all sections of nursery schools, in ordinary classes of schools at all levels and in universities and other institutes of higher education. 3.     Integration at school is aimed at developing the disabled person’s potential in the fields of learning, communication, relationships with others and socialisation. 4.     The exercise of the right to education must not be impeded by learning difficulties or other difficulties stemming from a disability. 5     Where it is noted that a child, a pupil or a student suffers from a disability with the meaning of Article   3 above, an operational profile shall be drawn up in accordance with the criteria of the bio-psycho-social model of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICFDH) adopted by the World Health Organisation (WHO), for the purposes of designing the individual project laid down in section 14 of Law no.   328 of 8   November 2000 and drawing up a personalised educational plan. ...” Article   13 – Integration at school “1.     The educational integration of persons with disabilities in [nursery school] sections and the ordinary classes of schools at all levels and in universities and other institutes of higher education is, in particular, without prejudice to the provisions of Law nos. 360 of 11   May 1976 and   517 of 4   August 1977 and their subsequent amendments, by the following means: a)     Ensuring coordination between school services, health, social, cultural, recreational and sports services and the other local and regional services administered by public or private agencies. To that end the local authorities, the school bodies and the local health units shall, in the framework of their respective competences, conclude the programme agreements set out in section 27 of Law no.   142 of 8   June 1990. Those agreements, the conclusion of which is governed by the guidelines laid down within three months of the entry into force of the present Law by decision of the Minister of Education in agreement with the Minister of Social Affairs and the Minister for Health, are aimed at drawing up, implementing and jointly reviewing personalised educational, rehabilitation and socialisation projects, as well as coordinating school and out-of- school activities. They shall also lay down the criteria to be fulfilled by the public and private agencies in question in order to participate in the aforementioned coordinated cooperative activities. b)     Supplying schools and universities with technical facilities, educational material and all requisite forms of technical assistance, independently from any general and functional assistance possibly guaranteed at the individual level for the purposes of the effective exercise of the right to education, in particular in the framework of agreements concluded with specialist centres with a view to provision by the latter of educational consultancy and special educational materials produced or adapted by them. ... 2.     For the purposes laid down in paragraph   1, the local authorities and local health units may also decide to adapt the organisation and functioning of day nurseries to the needs of children with disabilities in order to launch the rehabilitation, socialisation and integration process at as early an age as possible, and to assign teaching staff, operators and specialist assistants to them. 3.     Without prejudice to the obligation on local authorities, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 616 of 24   July 1977 and subsequent amendments thereto, to provide autonomy and personal communication assistance [1] for pupils with physical or sensory disabilities, access by such pupils to support activities is guaranteed in schools at all levels by assigning specialist teachers to the tasks in question. 4.     Support teacher posts in secondary education shall be apportioned among staff who are serving on the date of entry into force of the presented law such as to ensure a ratio at least equal to that laid down for the other educational levels, within the limits of available financial resources as set out in section 42 (6) (h). ... 6.     The support teacher [2] shares responsibility for the pupils with the teacher of the section or class in which he or she is operating, and therefore helps to develop educational activities and to devise and supervise activities related to the competence of inter-class advisors, class advisers and teaching teams. ...” Relevant case-law of the Court of Cassation 19 .     The combined divisions of the Court of Cassation has delivered the following judgments in this sphere, the relevant sections of which are reproduced below. Judgment no.   25011 of 25   November 2014: “As regards support for pupils with disabilities, the personalised educational plan as defined in section   12 of Law no.   104 of 5   February 1992 requires the school authorities to guarantee the provision of the scheduled number of hours of support, allowing them no discretion to apply any reduced version of the measure on grounds of insufficient resources; this also applies to nursery schools even though they do not come under the compulsory schooling requirement. Thus a failure on the part of the authorities to ensure the provision of the support laid down in the plan restricts the disabled person’s right to equal opportunities in access to school services, and where such restriction is not accompanied by a corresponding cut in the educational facilities provided for non-disabled pupils, that restriction will amount to indirect discrimination, a matter within the jurisdiction of the civil courts” Judgment no.   25101 of 8   October 2019: “Where, with the help of the teachers in the host school and public health staff, a personalised educational plan has been drawn up setting the number of hours of school support required for a pupil with a very severe disability, the school authorities have no discretionary power to revise or cancel, unilaterally, on the grounds of insufficient resources, the additional support measures set out in that plan. They are therefore required to appoint specialist teaching staff to support the pupil in question, if necessary by creating a support post in derogation from the standard pupil-teacher ratio. Where it has been established that the authorities have completely or partly failed in their duty to provide the necessary services, the disabled person’s fundamental right will have been restricted, and if the educational provision for [non-disabled] pupils has not been reduced to an equivalent extent, the situation will amount to indirect discrimination as prohibited under section 2 of Law no.   67 of 2006. Indeed, indirect discrimination can also stem from a failure to act on the part of the public authorities responsible for organising schooling to the detriment of pupils with disabilities as compared with other pupils. The civil courts therefore hold jurisdiction for such matters, and complainants do not have to explicitly argue in their applications for protection that the authorities in question engaged in discriminatory behaviour”. Judgment no.   9966 of 20 April 2017, where the Court of Cassation reaffirmed the conclusion of judgment no.   25011 of 25   November 2014, adding the following:   “...private schools must provide disabled pupils with the same support services as those provided by state schools. State subsidies only partly cover the cost of such services. Thus, indirect discrimination attributable to the State authorities consists in a failure to honour the obligation to provide the aforementioned subsidies leading to a reduction in educational and social service provision by private schools, and not a refusal to cover the total cost of such service, which is not incumbent on the authorities.” INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE 20.     The international materials relevant to the present case are described in Çam v. Turkey (no.   51500/08, §§   37 ‑ 38, 23   February 2016; see additionally Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech   Republic (dec.), no.   38621/97, ECHR 2002 ‑ V; Mółka v.   Poland (dec.), no.   56550/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ IV; and Farcaş v.   Romania (dec.), no.   32596/04, §§   68 ‑ 70, 14   September 2010). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 21.     Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.” Article 2 § 2   also provides: “... the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” 22.     In General Comment no. 5: Persons with Disabilities, E/1995/22 of 9 December 1994, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights explicitly stated the following: “3. The obligation to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of disability 15. Both de jure and de facto discrimination against persons with disabilities have a long history and take various forms. They range from invidious discrimination, such as the denial of educational opportunities, to more ‘subtle’ forms of discrimination such as segregation and isolation achieved through the imposition of physical and social barriers. For the purposes of the Covenant, ‘disability-based discrimination’ may be defined as including any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference, or denial of reasonable accommodation based on disability which has the effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of economic, social or cultural rights. Through neglect, ignorance, prejudice and false assumptions, as well as through exclusion, distinction or separation, persons with disabilities have very often been prevented from exercising their economic, social or cultural rights on an equal basis with persons without disabilities. The effects of disability-based discrimination have been particularly severe in the fields of education, employment, housing, transport, cultural life, and access to public places and services.” 23.     The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reaffirmed its General Comment no. 5 in its General Comment no. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/GC/20 of 2 July 2009, as follows: “B. Other status 24.     The nature of discrimination varies according to context and evolves over time. A flexible approach to the ground of ‘other status’ is thus needed in order to capture other forms of differential treatment that cannot be reasonably and objectively justified and are of a comparable nature to the expressly recognized grounds in article 2, paragraph 2. These additional grounds are commonly recognized when they reflect the experience of social groups that are vulnerable and have suffered and continue to suffer marginalization. ... Disability 25.     In its general comment No. 5, the Committee defined discrimination against persons with disabilities as ‘any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference, or denial of reasonable accommodation based on disability which has the effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of economic, social or cultural rights’. The denial of reasonable accommodation should be included in national legislation as a prohibited form of discrimination on the basis of disability. States parties should address discrimination, such as prohibitions on the right to education, and denial of reasonable accommodation in public places such as public health facilities and the workplace, as well as in private places, e.g. as long as spaces are designed and built in ways that make them inaccessible to wheelchairs, such users will be effectively denied their right to work.” UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 26 .     Regard should also be had to the following passages from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”), adopted on le 13   December 2006 by the United Nations General Assembly (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol.   2515, p.   3), which Italy signed on 30   March 2007 and ratified on 15   May 2009. Article   2 – Definitions “For the purposes of the present Convention: ‘Communication’ includes languages, display of text, Braille, tactile communication, large print, accessible multimedia as well as written, audio, plain-language, human-reader and augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication, including accessible information and communication technology; ‘Language’ includes spoken and signed languages and other forms of non-spoken languages; ‘Discrimination on the basis of disability’ means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation; ‘Reasonable accommodation’ means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;   ...” Article   3 – General principles “The principles of the present Convention shall be: 1. Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;   ...” Article   24 – Éducation “1.     States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning directed to: a. The full development of human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human diversity; b. The development by persons with disabilities of their personality, talents and creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential; c. Enabling persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society. 2. In realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure that: a) Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education, or from secondary education, on the basis of disability; b) Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live; c) Reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements is provided; d) Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education; e) Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion. 3. States Parties shall enable persons with disabilities to learn life and social development skills to facilitate their full and equal participation in education and as members of the community. To this end, States Parties shall take appropriate measures, including: a) Facilitating the learning of Braille, alternative script, augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication and orientation and mobility skills, and facilitating peer support and mentoring; ...” The Council of Europe 27 .     The European Social Charter (Revised) (ETS no.   163), which opened for signature on 3   May 1996 and was ratified by Italy on 5   July 1999, includes the following provision: Article   15 – The right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community “With a view to ensuring to persons with disabilities, irrespective of age and the nature and origin of their disabilities, the effective exercise of the right to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, the Parties undertake, in particular: 1. to take the necessary measures to provide persons with disabilities with guidance, education and vocational training in the framework of general schemes wherever possible or, where this is not possible, through specialised bodies, public or private; ... 3. to promote their full social integration and participation in the life of the community in particular through measures, including technical aids, aiming to overcome barriers to communication and mobility and enabling access to transport, housing, cultural activities and leisure.” Part V Article   E – Non-discrimination “The enjoyment of the rights set forth in this Charter shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national extraction or social origin, health, association with a national minority, birth or other status.” 28.     Recommendation No. R   (92)   6 of the Committee of Ministers on a coherent policy for people with disabilities, adopted on 9   April 1992, invites member States to “guarantee the right of people with disabilities to an independent life and full integration into society” and to “recognise society’s duty to make this possible”, in order to ensure that people with disabilities have real “equality of opportunity” with other people. Public authority action must be aimed at ensuring that people with disabilities can “have as much mobility as possible, and access to buildings and means of transport”, “play a full role in society” and “take part in economic, social, leisure, recreational and cultural activities”. 29 .     Recommendation Rec(2006)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the Council of Europe Action Plan to promote the rights and full participation of people with disabilities in society: improving the quality of life of people with disabilities in Europe 2006-2015 , adopted on 5   April 2006, lays down several action lines, the fourth of which reads as follows: Action line no.   4: Education “3.4.1.     Introduction Education i s a basic factor in ensuring social inclusion and independence for all people, including those with disabilities. Social influences, for example from families and friends, also contribute, but for the purposes of this action line education shall cover all stages of life, including pre-school, primary, secondary, high school education and professional training, as well as life-long learning. The creation of opportunities for disabled people to participate in mainstream education is not only important for disabled people but will also benefit non-disabled people’s understanding of human diversity. Most education systems provide access to mainstream education and specialised educational structures for disabled people, as appropriate. Mainstream and specialised structures should be encouraged to work together to support disabled people in their local communities, but this should be consistent with the goal of full inclusion . 3.4.2.   Objectives i.                   To ensure that all persons, irrespective of the nature and degree of their impairment, have equal access to education, and develop their personality, talents, creativity and their intellectual and physical abilities to their full potential; ii.                 to ensure that disabled people have the opportunity to seek a place in mainstream education by encouraging relevant authorities to develop educational provision to meet the needs of their disabled population; iii.                 to support and promote lifelong learning for disabled people of all ages and facilitate efficient and effective transitions between each phase of their education and between education and employment; iv.             to foster at all levels of the educational system, including in all children from an early age, an attitude of respect for the rights of people with disabilities. 3.4.3.       Specific actions by member states i.                   To promote legislation, policies and planning to prevent discrimination against children, young people and adults with disabilities in the access to all phases of their education from early years through to adult provision. In doing so, consult with disabled users, parents, and carers, voluntary organisations, and other relevant professional bodies, if appropriate; ii.                 to encourage and support the development of a unified education system, including mainstream and specialised educational provision, which promotes the sharing of expertise and greater inclusion of disabled children, young people and adults in the community; iii.                 to enable the early appropriate assessment of the special educational needs of disabled children, young people and adults to inform their educational provision and planning; iv.               to monitor the implementation of individual education plans and facilitate a co-ordinated approach to education provision throughout and towards employment; v.                 to ensure that people with disabilities, including children, receive the support required, within the mainstream education system, to facilitate their effective education. In exceptional circumstances, where their professionally-assessed special education needs are not met within the mainstream education system, member states will ensure that effective alternative support measures are provided consistent with the goal of full inclusion. All special and mainstream provisions should encourage the transition to mainstream education and reflect the same goals and standards; vi.               to encourage the development of initial and ongoing training for all professionals and staff working across all phases of education to incorporate disability awareness and the use of appropriate educational techniques and materials to support disabled pupils and students where appropriate; vii.               to ensure that all educational material and schemes provided through the general educational system are accessible to persons with disabilities; viii.             to include, in school civic education syllabuses, subjects relating to people with disabilities as people who have the same rights as all other citizens; ix.               to ensure that disability awareness is a key part of education programmes in mainstream schools and institutions; x.                 to take steps to make places of education and training accessible for persons with disabilities, including by the provision of personal support and of reasonable adjustments (including equipment) to meet their needs; xi.             to ensure that parents of disabled children are active partners in the process of the development of the individualised education plans of their children; xii.             to ensure access to non-formal education allowing disabled youth to develop needed skills otherwise unattainable through formal education; ...” 30.     For its part, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe addressed these matters in its Recommendation   1185 (1992) on rehabilitation policies for the disabled, adopted on 7   May 1992. This text emphasises that “our societies have the duty to tailor their norms to the specific needs of disabled persons in order to ensure that they can live autonomous lives”. To that end, the governments and competent authorities are called upon “to seek and encourage effective and active participation by disable people in community and social life” and therefore to ensure “the removal of   architectural obstacles”. 31 .     On 30   January 2015 the Assembly adopted Recommendation   2064 (2015), titled “Equality and inclusion for people with disabilities”, which comprises the following passages: “1.     The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its   Resolution 2039 (2015)   on equality and inclusion for people with disabilities. 2.     The Assembly welcomes the contribution of the Council of Europe Action Plan to promote the rights and full participation of people with disabilities in society: improving the quality of life of people with disabilities in Europe 2006-2015 to the development of national policies which take account of the rights of people with disabilities. The action plan has also helped to make people see disability as a human rights issue. 3.   The Assembly notes, however, that the full enjoyment of the rights of people with disabilities has by no means been achieved in Council of Europe member States. The principles set out in international instruments are not reflected in the everyday reality experienced by people with disabilities. Resolute action by the Council of Europe and the member States in the area of disability is therefore necessary. 4.   The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers: 4.1.   evaluate the implementation of the Action Plan for people with disabilities 2006-2015 and draw lessons from the ten-year period during which it was implemented in the member States; 4.2.   define on this basis a new road map for the period from 2016 to 2020, in close consultation with the organisations representing people with disabilities; 4.3.   focus this new road map on priority issues such as the legal capacity of people with disabilities and the measures aimed at ensuring their dignity and full inclusion in society; 4.4.   invite the Council of Europe Development Bank to make compliance with accessibility requirements a condition for granting loans for construction and renovation projects and not to finance the construction of large institutions for people with disabilities; 4.5.   ensure that disability is taken into account in the specific activities conducted by the Council of Europe, in particular in Council of Europe activities and campaigns to combat violence and hate speech.”   THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH Article 2 of protocol no. 1 32.     The applicant complained of an infringement of her right to education. In that connection it pointed out that for two whole school years she had been unable to receive the specialist assistance prescribed by law. She also considered that the State had failed in its positive obligation to ensure equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. She relied on Article   2 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows: “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” 33.     The applicant also complained that she had sustained discriminatory treatment on account of her disability, in breach of Article   14 of the Convention. The provision reads as follows: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this 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.” Subject matter of the dispute 34.     The Court considers that the core of the applicant’s complaint is the allegation that she sustained discriminatory treatment. She therefore considers that the case should primarily be examined under Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   2 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for a similar approach, Oršuš and Others v.   Croatia [GC], no.   15766/03, §§   143 ‑ 145, ECHR 2010, and Ponomaryovi v.   Bulgaria , no.   5335/05 , §   45, ECHR 2011; see also Enver Şahin v.   Turkey , no.   23065/12, §   32, 30   January 2018), it being understood that the scope of Article   14 of the Convention also covers the prohibition of discrimination based on disability (see, for example, Glor v.   Switzerland , no.   13444/04, §   80, ECHR 2009), but also the requirement for States to ensure “reasonable accommodation” that would help correct factual inequalities which are unjustified and therefore amount to discrimination. Admissibility 35.     The Government pleaded that the application had been lodged out of time. They submitted in particular that the final domestic decision had been given on 25   May 2015 and that the date stamped on the application form was 30   November 2015. 36.     The applicant contested that argument. She submitted that she had sent in her application on 24   November 2015, and that she had therefore applied to the Court on that date. In support of her submissions she presented copies of documents certifying that the application had been sent off on 24 November and, according to the acknowledgement of receipt of the registered letter, had arrived at the Court Registry on 27   November. 37.     The Court reiterates that the date on which the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention starts running ( dies a quo ) is the date on which the final domestic decision is served on the applicant (see, among many other authorities, Sabri Güneş v.   Turkey [GC], no.   27396/06, §   60, 29   June 2012), and that, pursuant to Rule 47 §   6   (a) of the Rules of Court, the date on which the application is lodged for the purposes of calculating the six-month time-limit ( dies ad quem ) is the date when the form was dispatched, as shown by the postmark, and not the date stamped by the Registry on the application acknowledging receipt (see Vasiliauskas v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   35343/05, §   117, ECHR 2015). 38.     In the instant case, the Court observes that the final domestic decision was the judgment of the Consiglio di Stato . It further notes that the envelope containing the application was dispatched on 24   November 2015, according to