CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sB064C97B { width:106.12%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA648FB07 { width:7.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDA919779 { width:27.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s23BE0B9C { width:21.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE92D7983 { width:16.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s731F93A4 { width:27.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6A24725C { width:7.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCEDCAC02 { width:27.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s990158F2 { width:21.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC545250 { width:16.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4AF22F1C { width:27.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 7 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 46988/22 Pavel ADAM and Others against Ukraine lodged on 21 September 2022 communicated on 18 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns complaints of alleged indirect discrimination and restriction on access to education in respect the applicants, who studied or are studying at two local State schools nos. 13 and 14 in Uzhgorod where, it is alleged, the majority of pupils are of Roma origin. The first two applicants born in 2002 and 2004 respectively, and the third applicant born in 2007, declare to be of Roma origin. They are represented by the European Roma Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Brussels. In 2017 the applicants’ parents filed an administrative claim against the Uzhgorod City Council’s Department of Education, the City Council and the two local schools. They substantiated their claims by highlighting that schools nos. 13 and 14 were predominantly attended by Roma students. They stressed that their children enjoyed less favourable conditions compared to those attending other schools in the city. According to the applicants’ parents, this inequality was especially evident in the quality of their children’s education, academic performance, access to a full secondary education, and opportunities for further education or future employment prospects. They argued that, of all the schools in the city, only those two schools did not have upper secondary education (i.e., they only provided basic secondary education (grades 5-9), unlike other secondary schools which also had grades   10-11 or 12, upper secondary education). They specifically referenced statistics from 2016 provided by the City Council’s Department of Education. These statistical data indicated, in particular, the number of Roma students in the city’s schools, according to which in 2015-2016, out of the total number of Roma students in the city, namely 695 students, 448 Roma students attended schools nos. 13 and 14 whereas 247 attended other schools. The applicants’ further arguments were that about 60% of Roma pupils in these two schools had low academic achievement and that the class attendance of Roma students was only around 74-84% as of 2016. They also complained of the low level of material and technical equipment in their schools compared to other schools in the city. In particular, the lack of a gym, poor condition of furniture, windows and doors. On 22 May 2018 the Zakarpattia Circuit Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ administrative claim. The court found that: (i) the lower academic achievement of Roma students in schools nos.   13 and 14 was primarily due to inadequate conditions for development and upbringing outside of schools and systematic failure to do homework (which was also the duty of parents to ensure), but did not indicate any inaction or negligence on the part of the city authorities in this matter; (ii) the educational process in the schools was provided by teachers with relevant professional education; (iii) the attendance rate in the schools was about 80% since some students systematically missed classes; (iv) the schools in which the applicants studied were not specialised schools but general education schools with the same curriculum as all other schools in the city and were open to all children; (v) upper secondary education could be provided in the same school as basic secondary education or in a different school; (vi) the applicants were not prevented from choosing any other school in the city and did not provide any corroborating evidence that they had applied to other schools in the city but had been refused admission; (vii) the reconstruction of the building of school no. 13 and renovations were carried out in accordance with the 2018 programme of economic and social development, and regarding school no. 14, the repairs were impossible due to the lack of title documents to the land on which the school was located. On 15 June 2022 Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court’s judgment. In the meantime, on 22 May 2018 the Circuit Court had issued a separate ruling ordering the Department and the City Council to improve sanitary conditions in schools nos. 13 and 14 and to take measures to increase academic performance and attendance. According to the applicants, this decision has not been complied with. The applicants rely on Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 12. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 on account, in particular, of unavailability of upper secondary education at the two schools in question (nos. 13 and 14)? 2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the grounds of their Roma origin, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention? In particular: (i) Have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment due to their Roma origin? (ii) Have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment due to the low quality of education and inadequate material and technical equipment of their schools (nos. 13 and 14) compared to other schools? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and have a reasonable justification? (iii) What steps have been taken to provide upper secondary education to students attending the two schools in question? (iv)   What steps have been taken to enforce the separate ruling of the Zakarpattia Circuit Administrative Court of 22 May 2018?       APPENDIX List of applicants: Application no. 46988/22 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Pavel ADAM 2004 Ukrainian Uzhgorod 2. Veronika ADAM 2007 Ukrainian Uzhgorod 3. Aleks BAZHO 2002 Ukrainian Uzhgorod