CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 11 July 2014 and 14 June 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no 289/14 Ștefan-Moshe STOIAN and Luminița STOIAN against Romania lodged on 19 December 2013 The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Have the applicants exhausted the effective domestic remedies concerning the alleged lack of acces, assistance and support for Ștefan-Moshe Stoian in the school he is currently attending?   2.     With respect to the school he is currently attending, has Ștefan-Moshe Stoian been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, given the manner in which he was treated in school and the manner in which the State authorities provided for his needs?   3.     Has Ms Luminiţa Stoian been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in her capacity as her disabled child’s carer, in particular concerning the alleged lack of adequate support from the State authorities for her son, which obliges her to physically carry him in the school premises, even today?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in respect of the allegations set out above?   5.     Has Ștefan-Moshe Stoian been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article 2 to Protocol No. 1, in the school he is currently attending?   6.     Has Ștefan-Moshe Stoian been discriminated against in violation of Article   14, read together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 in respect of the allegations made in question no. 5 above, in so far as the authorities failed to differentiate him from the non-disabled children at the school?   7.     Did the applicants have an effective domestic remedy at their disposal in respect of their complaints under Article 14 of the Convention, Article   2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   The parties are invited to provide information on the pending domestic proceedings.