CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 mai 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 75 May 2005 Kalanyos and Others v. Romania (dec.) - 57884/00 Decision 19.5.2005 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Burning of houses belonging to Roma villagers and alleged failure of the authorities to prevent the attack: admissible   Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Alleged failure to carry out an adequate criminal investigation, depriving the applicants of their right to bring a civil action to establish liability and recover damages: admissible   Article 14 Discrimination Destruction of houses belonging to Roma villagers, forcing them to live in poor conditions, allegedly due to the Roma ethnicity of the victims: admissible   The applicants, who are of Roma origin, live in a village which is also inhabited by non-Roma people. On 6   June 1991, a fight broke out between four Roma and a night watchman, for which the first applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Following the events, a crowd of non-Roma villagers assaulted and beat up two men, fatally injuring both of them. Two days later, they displayed a notice informing the Roma inhabitants that their houses would be set on fire the following day. The local authorities, who had been informed by the Roma, failed to intervene, “advising” the Roma to leave their homes for their own safety. On 9 June 1991, all twenty-seven Roma houses and their contents were set on fire and completely destroyed. During the following year, the Roma villagers were forced to live in nearby stables in dreadful conditions (without heating or running water). A police investigation was started, and the report registered the destruction by arson of 27 houses, pointing out that the causes of the events had been the fight on 6   June 1991. The applicants’ lawyers were refused access to the case-file. In 1996, the Prosecutor’s Office closed the investigation on the grounds that the prosecution of the offences was statute-barred. The applicants appealed to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Appeal, and subsequently to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Justice, requesting that the investigative authorities identify the perpetrators, secure their conviction and correctly classify the crimes as more serious offences with a view to establishing the real value of the damage they had incurred. The Prosecutor’s Office rejected the complaint, finding that the offences had been committed “as a result of serious acts of provocation of the victims”, and that given the large number of persons involved it had been impossible to identify the perpetrators. The applicants rebuilt their houses between 1991 and 1993. The mayor of the village provided them with some materials for the reconstruction, and included the Roma settlement in its programme for extending the electricity network. The applicants claimed that they had to rebuild their houses with their own money and efforts, assisted by friends and relatives. It appears that they have yet to receive compensation for the belongings and furniture lost during the events. Admissible under Articles 3, 6, 8, 13 and 14. The Government’s objections: (i) non-exhaustion: the remedy advanced by the Government, that is, the possibility of the applicants lodging an action with the criminal courts after the Prosecutor’s Office decision to close the investigation, was not expressly provided by law at the time of the events (objection dismissed); (ii) lack of victim status: the authorities had not recognised a violation of the applicants’ rights, nor had they received any compensation for the loss incurred. The mere fact that their homes were rebuilt with some help from the authorities did not deprive them of their victim status (objection dismissed). [Two similar cases concerning the destruction of houses belonging to Roma and their expulsion from villages are pending before the Court: Gergely v. Romania (Nº 57885/00) and Tănase and Others v. Romania (Nº 62954/00)].   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes