CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 décembre 2012

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 158 December 2012 Sampani and Others v. Greece - 59608/09 Judgment 11.12.2012 [Section I] Article 14 Discrimination Failure to provide schooling for and subsequent placement in special classes of 98   Roma children: violation   Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Individual measures Respondent State invited to enrol applicant pupils in a different State school   Facts – The applicants were ninety-eight children aged between five and a half and fifteen who were of school age between 2008 and 2010, and some of their parents or guardians. In January 2008, following the Sampanis and Others v. Greece judgment in which the Court found a violation of Article   14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   2 of Protocol No.   1, the 12th school was opened on the premises of the 10th school, where preparatory classes had previously been given for Roma children only. The new school was designed to admit Roma and non-Roma children alike. However, only Roma children attended the school. During the year it opened, the prefect decided that because of damage to the buildings, the school should temporarily use the prefabricated building adjacent to the 10th school, which had formerly housed the support classes criticised in the Sampanis and Others judgment. In addition, the head teacher of the 12th school and the Ombudsman alerted the authorities on a number of occasions to the problems the school was facing, particularly as regards the school bus route, the building of a playground, the installation of heating and additional toilets, the building of two additional classrooms, the setting up of a kindergarten, textbooks that were inappropriate for Roma whose mother tongue was not Greek and the fact that some pupils had dropped out of lessons from April 2009 onwards. Before the Court, the applicants complained that they had suffered discrimination on account of the conditions in which they were taught. Law – Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   2 of Protocol No.   1: There had been no significant changes in the situation that had given rise to the Sampanis and Others judgment, other than the intention expressed by the Ministry of Education to integrate Roma pupils into the ordinary education system as illustrated by the opening of the 12th school, which, for various reasons relating to the policy pursued by the municipal authorities and the prefect, had been unable to operate as planned; as a result, the Roma community continued to suffer a difference in treatment. There was therefore prima facie evidence of a practice of discrimination. The 12th school had been attended exclusively by Roma pupils between 2008 and 2010. There were also a number of factors suggesting that during the 2008/09 school year, the material conditions in which the pupils had been taught had made it impossible, or at least very difficult, to pursue their education. The use of the annexe to the 10th school as a classroom for the children concerned – originally intended as a temporary measure owing to lack of space – had continued throughout the period from 2009 to 2010. A further aspect was the attitude of the municipal authorities and the prefect’s office, which, fearing renewed incidents on the part of local residents who were hostile towards Roma, had failed to respond to calls by the head teacher and the Ombudsman to integrate Roma pupils into ordinary schools and to provide them with lessons appropriate to their level of education and linguistic ability. It was therefore apparent that the measures taken to educate Roma children had not been accompanied by sufficient guarantees to ensure that the State, while exercising its margin of appreciation in the education sphere, paid due regard to the particular needs of such children as members of a disadvantaged group. Furthermore, the Court was compelled to note that the Government had not given any convincing explanation of why there had been no non-Roma pupils at the 12th school, apart from making a vague reference to their being “enrolled elsewhere”. Accordingly, the conditions in which the 12th school had operated between 2008 and 2010 had ultimately resulted in further discrimination against the applicants. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 46: Certain specific measures – which had been recommended not only by the applicants but also by the Government in their observations in reply – were likely to put an end to the violation found by the Court. For example, those of the applicants who were still of school age could be enrolled at another State school by the West Attica Primary Education Department and those who had reached the age of majority could enrol at “second chance schools” or adult education institutes set up by the Ministry of Education under the Lifelong Learning Programme. Article 41: EUR 1,000 to each of the applicant families in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See Sampanis and Others v. Greece , no.   32526/05, 5   June 2008, Information Note no.   109 )   © 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