CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9547/23 Răzvan-Mihai GHERGHINA against Romania lodged on 20 February 2023 communicated on 3 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of access for the applicant, who uses a wheelchair, to public buildings and other public facilities. The applicant complained to the National Council for Combatting Discrimination (hereinafter “CNCD”) concerning his inability to access, during the summer of 2016, the following buildings (some located in the applicant’s city of residence): Palace of the Parliament, where occasionally cultural events were organised; the public University of Pitești and the private Constantin Brâncoveanu University in Pitești, as well as the Argeș County Museum (a local museum in the proximity of the applicant’s place of residence), the Pitești City Hall, the local Health Insurance House, the Bascov Mayor’s Office, the local House of Culture and the local police station. The CNCD dismissed the applicant’s claim finding that, despite the fact that the defendant parties did not fully comply with the legal requirements provided for in Law no. 448/2006 on protection and promotion of the rights of people with disabilities, they nevertheless made various arrangements to ensure access for disabled persons. Those findings were upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (hereinafter “the HCCJ”), the latter noting that, inter alia , “not every irregularity concerning the access of disabled persons to public institutions is to be regarded as discrimination”. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the HCCJ had failed to reverse the burden of proof, as provided for by law in the sphere of the protection of persons with disabilities. He also complains under Article   14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention of being discriminated on account of his disability. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in respect of his allegations of discrimination, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, 9 July 2015?   2.     Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos.   37685/10 and   22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), has the applicant suffered discrimination on account of his locomotor disability in the enjoyment of his right to private life, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention (absorbing the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention regarding the alleged failure of the domestic courts to reverse the burden of proof), read in conjunction with Article   8 of the Convention (see Arnar Helgi Lárusson v.   Iceland , no.   23077/19, 31 May 2022)?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on account of his locomotor disability in the enjoyment of his rights related to education, social services and participation in the cultural life, provided for in the Law no. 448/2006, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention?