CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 juillet 2008

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   532 17.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ORŠUŠ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Oršuš and Others v. Croatia (application no. 15766/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   no violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 (right to education) to the European Convention on Human Rights taken alone or in conjunction with Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) concerning the applicants’ complaint that they were placed in Roma-only classes at primary school; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the proceedings brought by the applicants before the Constitutional Court with regard to their complaint.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 1,300   euros   (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are 14 Croatian nationals of Roma origin: Mirjana Oršuš, Gordan Oršuš, Dejan Balog, Siniša Balog, Manuela Kalanjoš, Josip Oršuš, Biljana Oršuš, Smiljana Oršuš, Branko Oršuš, Jasmina Bogdan, Josip Bogdan, Dijana Oršuš, Dejan Oršuš and Danijela Kalanjoš. They were born between 1988 and 1994 and all live in Orehovica, Podturen and Trnovec in northern Croatia.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that they were segregated at primary school into Roma-only classes.   The applicants started primary school in the villages of Macinec, Podutren and Orehovica between the years 1996 and 2000. During their elementary schooling, the first nine applicants attended both Roma-only and mixed classes before leaving school at the age of 15; the remaining five applicants are still at school and attend entirely Roma-only classes. Most of the applicants were provided with additional classes in Croatian and participated in mixed group extra-curricular activities organised by their respective schools.   In April 2002 the applicants brought proceedings against their primary schools. They claimed that the Roma-only curriculum in their schools had 30% less content than the official national curriculum. They alleged that that situation was racially discriminating and violated their right to education as well as their right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment. They also submitted a psychological study of Roma children who attended Roma-only classes in their region which reported that segregated education produced emotional and psychological harm in Roma children, both in terms of self-esteem and development of their identity.   In September 2002 Čakovec Municipal Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint. It found that the reason why most Roma pupils were placed in separate classes was that they needed extra tuition in Croatian. Furthermore, the curriculum at Podturen and Macinec Elementary schools was the same as that used in parallel classes in those schools. Consequently, the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations concerning racial discrimination. The applicants’ complaint was also subsequently dismissed on appeal.   The applicants’ constitutional complaint, lodged in November 2003, was dismissed on similar grounds in February 2007.   The Government submitted statistics for the year 2001 which showed that only Macinec Elementary School had a majority of Roma pupils attending Roma-only classes; the other two schools’ proportion of Roma pupils attending such classes was below 50%. This proved that it was not a general policy in the applicants’ schools to automatically place Roma pupils in separate classes.   The applicants claimed, however, that they were told to leave school at 15 and that the discrimination they suffered was borne out by certain statistics such as, in the school year 2006/2007, the drop-out rate of Roma pupils at primary school was 84   %, in comparison to a 9   % drop-out rate with regard to the general elementary school population in their county.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 May 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that their segregation into Roma-only classes at school deprived them of their right to education in a multicultural environment and made them endure severe educational, psychological and emotional harm, and in particular feelings of alienation and lack of self-esteem. They also complained about the excessive length of the proceedings they brought before the civil courts concerning those complaints. They relied, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 (right to education) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court found that the applicants’ arguments had been too general and based on speculation. There was no indication that the authorities had intended to humiliate or debase the applicants or had shown any lack of respect for their human dignity by placing them in Roma-only classes for a certain period during their elementary school education. Indeed, nine of the applicants attended both Roma-only and mixed classes and no evidence had been provided to show that the participation of the remaining five applicants in entirely Roma-only classes had had an adverse effect on them. Moreover, the fact that extra-curricular activities in mixed groups had been made available to all pupils showed that the schools had made an effort to facilitate socialising between Roma and non-Roma pupils outside the classroom.   Accordingly, the Court considered that it had not been established that the applicants had been subjected to a level of ill-treatment which should be considered under Article 3 and therefore dismissed that part of the applicants’ complaint.   Article 2 of Protocol No.   1 taken alone   Firstly, the Court observed that the applicants’ education had not been of lower quality than other pupils’ attending the same schools. It had been established in the domestic proceedings that the Roma-only curriculum in the schools attended by the applicants had been no different. Nor had the applicants given sufficient evidence in their submissions to the Court to support their claim that the Roma-only class curriculum had up to 30% less content.   Furthermore, transferring pupils from a Roma-only to a mixed class had been a regular practice in those schools, as illustrated by the case of the first nine applicants. The applicants had never asked to be transferred to a mixed class, or objected to their placement in a Roma-only class. The last five applicants were still attending lower grades of elementary school, where the question of transfer to a mixed class would be premature in view of the reasons for their initial placement in a Roma-only class, namely their insufficient command of the Croatian language.   Moreover, the applicants’ parents had not been deprived or even complained that they had been deprived of their right under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 “to enlighten and advise their children, to exercise with regard to their children natural parental functions as educators, or to guide their children on a path in line with the parents’ own religious or philosophical convictions”.   The Court therefore held that the applicants had not been deprived of their right to attend school and receive an education and that the education they had been provided with had been adequate and sufficient. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone.   Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1   The Court observed that any difference in treatment of the applicants had been based on their language skills. Indeed, the applicants had never contested the fact that, at the time of their enrolment in elementary school, they had not had a sufficient enough command of the Croatian language in order to follow lessons. The Government also submitted that language tests had shown that a majority of Roma children in the communities at issue had lacked adequate knowledge of the Croatian language. The Court accepted that that problem had to be addressed by the relevant State authorities. At any event, the placing of Roma children in separate classes in Croatia was a method used in only four elementary schools in one particular region, owing to the high representation of Roma pupils there. The statistics submitted by the Government further proved that it had not been a general policy in those schools to automatically place Roma pupils in separate classes.   The Court reiterated that in the sphere of education States could not be prohibited from setting up separate classes or different types of school for children with difficulties, or implementing special educational programmes to respond to special needs. It was in fact satisfying that the authorities had addressed that sensitive and important issue. The placement of the applicants in separate classes had therefore been a positive measure designed to assist them in acquiring knowledge necessary for them to follow the school curriculum.   The Court concluded that the initial placement of the applicants in separate classes had been based on their insufficient knowledge of the Croatian language and not on their race or ethnic origin. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 6 § 1   Given what was at stake for the applicants, namely their right to education, the Court found that the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, more than four years, had been excessive, in violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.