CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt }   120 12.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   ROMA CHILDREN EDUCATION CASE COMMUNICATED TO THE GOVERNMENT   On 28 January 2010, the European Court of Human Rights has communicated to the Government of Hungary the case Horváth and Vadászi v. Hungary (application no. 2351/06) for observations.   Principal facts   The applicants, Tibor Horváth and Géza Vadászi, are Hungarian nationals, born in 1987, who live in Kesznyéten (Hungary). They are of Roma origin. Following their qualification by a county expert panel as having mild intellectual disabilities, which was confirmed by a second examination in 2000, they were placed in a special class of the local school, which they attended from 1994 until 2002.   In 2004 the applicants’ lawyer filed a criminal complaint against unknown perpetrators on the charge, in particular, of endangering minors. She alleged that the education in the special class had jeopardised the applicants’ intellectual progress, since only a reduced curriculum had been offered – which did not include biology, chemistry, physics or a foreign language – and since the teacher in charge did not have the appropriate qualification, namely a degree in special pedagogy. The lawyer complained that the assignment of the applicants to the special class had served the purpose of their physical segregation. In the course of the subsequent investigation, a report by a public education expert concluded that the limited curriculum might have jeopardised the applicants’ higher education, while a new examination of the applicants’ intellectual ability confirmed the findings of the two earlier examinations and the psychologist in charge concluded that in view of their mental disabilities the applicants’ development could not have been jeopardised by their placement in the special class. In December 2004 the district’s public prosecutor discontinued the investigation, finding no appearance of a grave breach of duty on the part of the school officials, and in January 2005 the county’s public prosecutor dismissed the complaint.   The applicants’ lawyer subsequently hired a private expert in clinical psychology and public education, who established that the applicants had not suffered from the kind of serious mental disability which would have justified their separate education, accordingly their placement in the special class had endangered their mental and psychological development. Relying on that opinion, the lawyer brought civil proceedings for endangering minors against the school director and the expert responsible for reviewing the applicants’ intellectual ability in 2000. The claim was dismissed by the district court in June 2005.   Complaints, procedure and questions to the parties   Relying on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of degrading treatment) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), alone and in conjunction with Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complain that their placement in the special class was a discriminatory measure due to their Roma origin.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 December 2005.   In its communication to the parties, the Court poses the following questions:   Do the applicants’ allegations fall within the ambit of Article 3? If so, were the procedural requirements flowing from that Article complied with, read alone or in conjunction with Article 14? In view of the reasons which the authorities gave for the non-pursuit of the applicants’ criminal complaints, were the relevant substantive and procedural provisions of the Hungarian criminal law sufficiently clear to enable an adequate investigation in the circumstances?   If not, has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private life), read alone or in conjunction with Article 14? Has Article 35 § 1 (exhaustion of domestic remedies) been complied with in this regard?   Have the applicants been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1? Have they been discriminated against, in breach of Article 14, in the enjoyment of this right? Has Article 35 § 1 been complied with in this regard?   ***   A statement of facts submitted to the Government is available only in English on the Court’s website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.