CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 2 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 19976/15 Marius-Josefin MIHALACHE against Romania lodged on 16 April 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a court as he was not allowed to attach his civil claim for compensation to the criminal proceedings concerning the death of his son in a car accident. The courts dismissed his request on the grounds that he had not proved that he was the victim’s father as he was not registered as such in the official documents (final decision no. 999 of 20 October 2014 of the Ploieşti Court of Appeal, file no. 40204/281/2010). The court refused to hear evidence brought by the applicant to prove his allegations (witness testimony and statements from the local authorities). The applicant contends that in other cases the domestic courts awarded damages to non-married partners, thus recognising them as a family. Furthermore, the applicant explained that he and his family are of Roma origin and according to their tradition they do not contract civil marriages nor systematically comply with the legal formalities of recognising their children at birth. He considers that the only reason why he was not granted leave to intervene as civil party in the proceedings was his Roma origin.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as he was prevented from establishing his connection to the victim and thus from bringing civil claims in the criminal proceedings concerning the death of his out-of-wedlock son?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his right of access to a court, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, on the ground of his ethnic appurtenance? In particular: (a)     have the domestic courts been sensitive to the specific traditions of the Roma community concerning civil recognition of marriage and birth (see, mutatis mutandis , Muñoz Díaz v. Spain , no. 49151/07, §§   59-62, ECHR   2009; and Weller v. Hungary , no. 44399/05, §   30-35, 31   March 2009)? (b)     have the domestic courts been biased in denying the applicant the right to bring evidence to prove his paternity? Were they motivated by the applicant’s ethnic origin (see, mutatis mutandis , D.H. and Others v.   the   Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007 ‑ IV)?