CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 23 June 2020 Published on 15 July 2020 FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23077/19 Arnar Helgi LARUSSON against Iceland lodged on 23 April 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the difficulties faced by persons with physical disabilities to have access to buildings open to the public. The applicant, who uses a wheelchair, filed a civil case, together with an association for persons with spinal injury, against the municipality “R” and a property company “E”. They demanded that R and E be obliged to take certain measures to improve the accessibility of two buildings. The first building is owned by R and houses an arts and culture centre. The second building is owned by E and rented by R. It houses a youth social and cultural centre. The plaintiffs also demanded that R and E be obliged to pay the applicant damages for personal injury suffered, due to the poor accessibility of the buildings. By a judgment of 24 November 2016, the District Court of Reykjanes rejected the plaintiffs’ demands. By a judgment of 25 October 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 8, that the lack of accessibility of the buildings discriminates against him, as a person with disabilities, compared to others in the enjoyment of his private life. The applicant submits that there is no legitimate aim behind this discrimination and that no balancing of his rights against opposing interests was done by the national courts.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the issue of the accessibility of the buildings in question fall under the scope of the term ‘private life’ under Article 8 (see, inter alia , Botta v. Italy , 24 February 1998, §§ 31-39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I and Glaisen v. Switzerland [dec.], 25 June 2019, §§ 47-55, no. 40477/13)?   2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8? Did the State take reasonable measures of accommodation to enable the applicant to enjoy his rights equally to others (see, inter alia , Çam v. Turkey , no. 51500/08, §§ 54, 65-67, 23   February   2016; and Enver Şahin v. Turkey , no. 23065/12, §§ 67-69, 30   January 2018)?