CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 juillet 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s50794FE3 { margin-left:42.72pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s5D8BCAF7 { width:3.12pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 397 12.7.2005 Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MOLDOVAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (No. 2)   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 2) (application nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01).   The Court held: unanimously, that there had been and was a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home) of the European Convention on Human Rights; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention; by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article   6   §   1 (access to court); unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the length of the proceedings; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Articles 6 § 1 and 8.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants the following sums in respect of pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage: 60,000   euros   (EUR) to Iulius Moldovan; EUR   13,000 to Melenuţa Moldovan; EUR   11,000 to Maria Moldovan; EUR   15,000 to Otilia Rostaş; EUR   17,000 to Petru (Gruia) Lăcătuş; EUR   95,000 to Maria Floarea Zoltan and EUR   27,000 to Petru (Dîgăla) Lăcătuş. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The case originally involved 25 applicants, of whom 18 have agreed to a friendly settlement of their case (see judgment in the case Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 1) , delivered on 5.7.2005).   The remaining seven applicants are: Iulius Moldovan, Melenuţa Moldovan, Maria Moldovan, Otilia Rostaş, Petru (Gruia) Lăcătuş , Maria Floarea Zoltan and Petru (Dîgăla) Lăcătuş. They are all Romanian nationals of Roma origin, born respectively in 1959, 1963, 1940, (unknown for Otilia Rostaş and Petru (Gruia) Lăcătuş,) 1964 and 1962. Maria Florea Zoltan was married to Mircea Zoltan and the sister of Rapa Lupian Lăcătuş and Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş. At the material time, the applicants lived in Hădăreni, in the district of Mureş (Romania) where they were agricultural workers. Iulius Moldovan is now living in Spain and Maria Floarea Zoltan, in the United Kingdom. Some applicants have returned to Hădăreni and others are homeless.   In September 1993 a row broke out between three Roma men – Rapa Lupian Lăcătuş, Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş, and Mircea Zoltan – and a non-Roma villager in Hădăreni that led to the villager’s son, who had tried to intervene, being stabbed in the chest by Rapa Lupian Lăcătuş. The three Roma men fled to a nearby house. A large, angry crowd gathered outside, including the local police commander and several officers. The house was set on fire. Rapa Lupian Lăcătuş and Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş managed to escape from the house, but were pursued by the crowd and beaten to death. Mircea Zoltan was prevented from leaving the building and burnt to death. The applicants alleged that the police had encouraged the crowd to destroy more Roma property in the village. By the following day, 13 Roma houses had been completely destroyed including the homes of all seven applicants (in Maria Florea Zoltan’s case, her mother’s home). Much of the applicants’ personal property was also destroyed.   When they tried to return to their homes, Otilia Rostaş alleged that rocks were thrown at her and Maria Moldovan, that she was beaten by police officers who also sprayed pepper in her face. Petru (Dîgăla) Lăcătuş alleged that his pregnant wife was beaten and that their baby was subsequently born with brain damage.   The Roma residents of Hădăreni lodged a criminal complaint against those allegedly responsible, including six police officers.   In September 1995, all charges against the police officers were dropped.   On 11 November 1997 a criminal trial, in conjunction with a civil case for damages, began against 11 villagers before Târgu-Mureş County Court. Various witnesses testified that police officers had instigated the incident and allowed the three Roma men to be killed and houses to be destroyed. During the trial, all the civilian defendants stated that police officers encouraged the crowd to set fire to the houses and undertook to cover up what had happened. The court established that the villagers, with the authorities’ support, had set out to have the village “purged of Gypsies”.   In its judgment of 17 July 1998 the county court noted, among other things, that “the Roma community has marginalised itself, shown aggressive behaviour and deliberately denied and violated the legal norms acknowledged by society. Most of the Roma have no occupation and earn their living by doing odd jobs, stealing and engaging in all kinds of illicit activities”.   Five villagers were convicted of extremely serious murder and 12 villagers, including the former five, were convicted of other offences. The court sentenced them to between one and seven years’ imprisonment. The appellate court convicted a sixth villager of extremely serious murder and increased the sentence of one of the defendants; the other defendants had their sentences reduced. In November 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the convictions for the destruction of property but reduced the charge of extremely serious murder to one of serious murder for three of the defendants.     In 2000 two of the convicted villagers received a presidential pardon.   The Romanian Government subsequently allocated funds for the reconstruction of the damaged or destroyed houses. Eight were reconstructed, though the applicants submitted photographs showing that those houses were uninhabitable, with large gaps between the windows and the walls and incomplete roofs. Three houses have not been rebuilt, including those belonging to Petru (Gruia) Lăcătuş and Maria Floarea Zoltan. According to an expert report submitted by the Government, the damage caused to the houses of Petru (Gruia) Lăcătuş and Moldovan Maria had not been repaired and the houses of Iulius Moldovan and Otilia Rostaş had been rebuilt, but remained unfinished.   The applicants submitted that, following the events of September 1993, they had been forced to live in hen-houses, pigsties, windowless cellars or in extremely cold and over-crowded   conditions, which lasted for several years and in some cases were still continuing. As a result, many applicants and their families fell ill. The illnesses contracted included: hepatitis, a heart condition (leading to a fatal heart attack), diabetes, and meningitis.     Mureş Regional Court delivered its judgment in the civil case on 12 May 2003. It awarded the applicants pecuniary damage in relation to the houses destroyed of between ROL   130,000,000 [2] and ROL 600,000 [3] . Maria Floarea Zoltan, Mircea Zoltan’s widow, was awarded only half the minimum amount applicable as a maintenance allowance for her child on the ground that the deceased victims had provoked the crimes committed. Finally, the court rejected all the applicants’ requests for non-pecuniary damages as unsubstantiated.   It was not until 24 February 2004 that the applicants (except Petru (Gruia) Lăcătuş, who received nothing) received awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ranging from ROL 100,000,000 [4] to ROL 20,000,000 [5] .   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged on 14 April 1997 and 9 May 2000. The cases were joined on 13 March 2001. On 3 June 2003 the Court declared the applications partly admissible. On 19 April 2004 and 18 May 2004, 18 of the original applicants and the Government submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. On 5 July 2005 the Court delivered the first judgment striking the case out of the list insofar as it concerned the friendly settlement between the 18 applicants and the Government. That judgment severed the application insofar as it concerned the present applicants and adjourned the examination of the complaints introduced by them.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [6]   Complaints The applicants complained that – following the destruction of their houses – they could not live in their homes and had to live in very poor, cramped conditions. They also complained that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate criminal investigation, which   prevented them from bringing a civil action in damages against the State regarding the misconduct of the police officers concerned. Several applicants also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings. They further submitted that they had suffered discrimination. They relied on Articles 3, 8, 6 and 14 of the Convention,   Decision of the Court   Article 8 The Court noted that it could not examine the applicants’ complaints about the destruction of their houses and possessions or their expulsion from the village, because those events took place in September 1993, before the ratification of the Convention by Romania in June 1994.   However, it was clear from the evidence submitted by the applicants and the civil court judgments, that police officers were involved in the burning of the Roma houses and tried to cover up the incident. Having been hounded from their village and homes, the applicants were then obliged to live, and some of them still live, in crowded and unsuitable conditions – cellars, hen-houses, stables, etc. - and frequently changed address, moving in with friends or family in extremely overcrowded conditions. Having regard to the direct repercussions of the acts of State agents on the applicants’ rights, the Court considered that the Government’s responsibility was engaged regarding the applicants’ subsequent living conditions.   There was no doubt that the question of the applicants’ living conditions fell within the scope of their right to respect for family and private life, as well as their homes. Article 8 was thus clearly applicable to those complaints.   Considering whether the national authorities took adequate steps to put a stop to breaches of the applicants’ rights, the Court noted that: despite the involvement of State agents in the burning of the applicants’ houses, the Public Prosecutors’ Office failed to institute criminal proceedings against them, preventing the domestic courts from establishing the responsibility of those officials and punishing them; the domestic courts refused for many years to award pecuniary damages for the destruction of the applicants’ belongings and furniture; it was only ten years after the events that compensation was awarded for the destroyed houses, although not for the loss of belongings; in the judgment in the criminal case against the accused villagers, discriminatory remarks about the applicants’ Roma origin were made; the applicants’ requests for non-pecuniary damages were also rejected at first instance, the civil courts considering that the events - the burning of their houses and the killing of some of their family members - were not of a nature to create any moral damage; when dealing with a request from Maria Floarea Zoltan for a maintenance allowance for her minor child, whose father was burnt alive during the incident, the regional court awarded an amount equivalent to a quarter of the statutory minimum wage, and decided to halve that amount on the ground that the deceased victims had provoked the crimes; three houses were not rebuilt and the houses rebuilt by the authorities were uninhabitable; and most of the applicants did not return to their village, and lived scattered throughout Romania and Europe.   In the Court’s view, those elements taken together indicated a general attitude on the part of the Romanian authorities which perpetuated the applicants’ feelings of insecurity after June 1994 and affected their rights to respect for their private and family life and their homes. The Court concluded that that attitude, and the repeated failure of the authorities to put a stop to breaches of the applicants’ rights, amounted to a serious violation of Article 8 of a continuing nature.   Article 3 The Court considered that the applicants’ living conditions over the last ten years, and its detrimental effect on their health and well-being, combined with the length of the period during which they had had to live in such conditions and the general attitude of the authorities, must have caused them considerable mental suffering, thus diminishing their human dignity and arousing in them feelings of humiliation and debasement.   In addition, the remarks concerning the applicants’ honesty and way of life made by some authorities dealing with the case appeared to be, in the absence of any substantiation on behalf of those authorities, purely discriminatory. In that connection the Court reiterated that discrimination based on race could of itself amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. Such remarks should therefore be taken into account as an aggravating factor in the examination of the applicants’ complaint under Article 3.   The Court concluded that the applicants’ living conditions and the racial discrimination to which they had been publicly subjected by the way in which their grievances were dealt with by the various authorities, constituted an interference with their human dignity which, in the special circumstances of the case, amounted to “degrading treatment” within the meaning of Article 3.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 6 § 1   Access   to court The Court found that it had not been shown that there was a possibility to bring an effective civil action for damages against the police officers in the particular circumstances of the case. The Court was not, therefore, able to determine whether the domestic courts would have been able to adjudicate on the applicants’ claims had they, for example, brought a tort action against individual members of the police.   However, the applicants lodged a civil action against the civilians who had been found guilty by the criminal court, claiming compensation for the destruction of their homes. That claim was successful and effective, the applicants having been granted compensation. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicants could not claim an additional right to a separate civil action against the police officers allegedly involved in the same incident.   In the light of those considerations, the Court concluded, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicants’ effective access to a tribunal.   Right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time The period under consideration began in September 1993, when the applicants lodged their complaints and an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, and ended on 25 February 2005. They lasted more than 11 years, of which some nine months were prior to the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Romania. Having regard to the criteria established in its case law for the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings and the particular circumstances of the case, the Court found that the length of the civil proceedings instituted by the applicants did not satisfy the reasonable-time requirement and therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 14 The Court noted first that the attacks were directed against the applicants because of their Roma origin. The Court reiterated that it was not able to examine under the Convention the actual burning of the applicants’ houses and the killings in question. It observed, however, that the applicants’ Roma ethnicity appeared to have been decisive for the length and the result of the domestic proceedings. Among other things, it took note of the repeated discriminatory remarks made by the authorities throughout the whole case and their blank refusal until 2004 to award non-pecuniary damages for the destruction of the family homes.   The Court observed that the Romanian Government had provided no justification for the difference in treatment of the applicants. It concluded accordingly that there has been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8.     Judges Bîrsan and Mularoni expressed a joint concurring opinion and Judge Thomassen expressed a partly dissenting opinion joined by Judge Loucaides. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.   *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Around 3,745 EUR [3] Around 17 EUR [4] Around 2,880 EUR [5] Around 575 EUR [6] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.