CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 décembre 2023

.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 15 January 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57084/21 Alexandru VARGA against Romania lodged on 11 November 2021 communicated on 19 December 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the domestic appellate court to award damages to a father for the pain and suffering caused by the death of his son in a traffic accident (he was a pedestrian when hit by a motorcycle). The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of race, income and social origin. The applicant had a 33-year-old son who died in 2018, after being hit by a motorcycle driven by a man with no appropriate driving licence. The motorcyclist was found guilty of manslaughter and received a suspended prison sentence. The applicant joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party, requesting moral damages for the pain and suffering endured following the death of his son. He was awarded EUR 60,000 in damages by the first instance court. Following an appeal of the defendant party, by final decision of 28 April 2021 (communicated on 31 May 2021), the Court of Appeal of Timișoara retracted the damages awarded by the first instance court and dismissed the applicant’s civil claim. The appellate court found that the applicant did not demonstrate any suffering and loss from his son’s death, considering that his deceased son’s only identification document issued in his name was his birth certificate (he had no ID card); that he had never been in school and had not attended any form of professional training that could made him find a job and earn money for a living and that he had speech difficulties ( dificultăţi de exprimare ). Moreover, while the applicant had declared that his son was living with him, the court found, based on one witness’s declaration, that he was homeless. In view of these elements, the court considered that the legal presumption of close personal ties with the victim, determined by the degree of kinship, had been overturned and the provision of damages was not necessary. When examining a photo submitted by the applicant representing his son when he was younger, the court of appeal made references on the applicant’s deceased son’s darker skin colour ( culoarea pielii pare mai închisă în poză ). Invoking Articles 6 and 8 combined with 14 of the Convention, Article   1 of Protocol no. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol no. 12 to the Convention, the applicant argues that the appellate court’s approach to the case is fallacious and discriminatory on the basis of social origin, race and income. He says that he is a poor Roma man, who did not have the education and financial resources necessary to provide for his son; this, however, does not mean that he did not love him. The fact that the victim was poorly dressed and of Roma ethnicity should not be interpreted as meaning that he was homeless and had no family ties. The applicant thus argues that his pain and suffering were severe, the damage being obvious; the domestic court refused to acknowledge this only due to its preconceptions about the poor Roma and people who did not attend formal education or who have addictions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the reasons and the outcome of the decision of 28   April 2021 of the Court of Appeal of Timișoara, has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 6 of the Convention and/or to Article 1 of Protocol no. 12 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary , no.   11146/11, §   128, 29   January 2013, and X and Others v. Albania , nos.   73548/17 and 45521/19, 31 May 2022)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol no.   1 due to the decision of 28 April 2021 of the Court of Appeal of Timisoara?