CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 30 septembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } 710 30.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Admissibility decision   Farcaş v. Romania (application no. 32596/04)   COMPLAINTS ABOUT ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY A DISABLED applicant DECLARED INADMISSIBLE   Unanimously: application inadmissible     Principal facts   The applicant, Alois Farcaş, is a Romanian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Piatra Neamţ. The case concerns the alleged impossibility for the applicant, who since the age of ten has been suffering from a physical disability (progressive muscular dystrophy), to access certain buildings, in particular those of the courts that have jurisdiction in respect of disputes over his civil rights.   Between 1983 and 2004 Mr Farcaş worked as an electronics repairman in a telecommunications workshop. His contract was terminated in 2004 and he claimed it was against his will, but according to the Romanian Government it was on his own initiative.   Mr Farcaş claimed that he had not been able to access the court building – as the entrance was not specially adapted – in order to challenge the termination of his contract. According to the Romanian Government, the single step of 17 cm at the entrance to the County Court was not an obstacle for the applicant, who had to climb 12 steps to enter his workplace. They further noted that the District Court had been equipped for persons with reduced mobility in April 2004.   The applicant also claimed that he had not been able to challenge the decision concerning his category of disability (“second degree”), as he had not been able to access the building of the commission of experts, although the Romanian Government contended that it had a ramp and a handrail.   The mediator contacted by the applicant referred him back to the courts, stating that the matter was not within his remit. The Government observed that the applicant could have sought assistance from the Bar Association by telephone, fax or Internet, but had not done so. They also disputed the argument that the applicant had been unable to enter the post office to send letters to the authorities, submitting that his local post office had no steps.   In November 2004, after a re-examination of his state of health, he was found to have a “first degree” disability and was granted the right to have a personal assistant.   Mr Farcaş said that he was unable to travel further than 600 metres around his house because of the height of the pavements and claimed that his situation had worsened in 2007, as it had become impossible to register his vehicle on account of technical defects that he was unable to remedy. He said that he felt marginalised, not being able to use public transport or the city’s administrative buildings and cultural institutions.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained under several provisions of the European Convention, including Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that he could not access certain buildings and, in particular, that   civil cases he wished to bring before the courts could not be examined as he could not access court buildings.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 August 2004. On 27 April 2010, a hearing was held in the Human Rights Building in Strasbourg.   The admissibility decision was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Judges ,   And also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   In his application the applicant had relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c), Articles 10, 13, 17 and 18, and on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. The Court took the view that Mr Farcaş’ claims could be best examined under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8, taken separately or in conjunction with Article 14.   In addition, the Court examined of its own motion the question whether Article 34 (right of individual application), taken separately or in conjunction with Article 14, had been complied with, in view of the alleged impossibility for the applicant to challenge the decisions concerning his civil rights and thus to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1, because he had been unable to access the premises of the domestic courts, contact a lawyer or use postal services.   Articles 6 § 1 and 34 taken separately or in conjunction with Article 14   Mr Farcaş had complained that it had been impossible for him to bring legal proceedings to challenge the decision to discontinue his professional activity and the decisions by which he had been granted a retirement pension and denied the right to have a personal assistant before 2004. Those challenges had direct implications for his civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, which was therefore applicable.   The Court reiterated that hindrance in fact could contravene the Convention just like a legal impediment and that limitation of access to a court could not go as far as interfering with an individual’s entitlement to a fair hearing. It took the view that the impossibility for a person to bring legal proceedings on account of a lack of special access to courthouses for persons with reduced mobility could be regarded as a hindrance in fact capable of impeding access to a court in the absence of any alternative means to remedy the situation.   The Court noted that Article 34 could also come into play if it transpired that the applicant had not been able to exhaust domestic remedies because no specific measures had been taken to cater for his medical condition. Active measures could be expected from the State. Article 34, which guaranteed the right of individual petition, constituted one of the essential pillars of the effectiveness of the Convention system.   The parties’ views differed as to whether the applicant had been able, at the relevant time, to access the court buildings, of the Bar Association and of the medical commission. Mr Farcaş had not submitted any convincing argument to justify his failure to take action by writing to the courts or administrative authorities to challenge the impugned decisions, which he could have done through an intermediary, for example a member of his family.   The Court also had doubts about the pertinence of the applicant’s argument that he could not have brought any judicial proceedings without a lawyer because, firstly, the assistance of a lawyer was not necessary to initiate the proceedings in question, and secondly, the applicant had been able, on his own, to lodge his application with the European Court of Human Rights.   As regards the alleged impossibility for Mr Farcaş to use the services of the post office, the Court noted that he had, on a number of occasions, used that form of communication during the domestic and Strasbourg proceedings.   The Court concluded that neither the right of access to a court nor the right of individual petition had been hindered by insurmountable obstacles preventing the applicant from bringing proceedings or from lodging an application or communicating with the Court. No appearance of discriminatory treatment against Mr Farcaş had been noted. The Court thus rejected that part of the application.   Article 8 taken separately or in conjunction with Article 14   As regards the aspect of this complaint that concerned the decisions of Mr Farcaş’ employer and the administrative authorities, their consequences for his private life and the alleged impossibility for him to challenge them, the Court, having regard to its findings under Article 6 § 1, held that there was no reason for it to reach a different conclusion under Article 8. In addition, as the applicant had not done everything that could have been expected of him in order to avail himself of the available remedies – a telephone call to a mediator not being sufficient – that part of the application was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.   As regards the alleged failure of the authorities to take measures to enable Mr Farcaş to access certain public buildings and to travel around the town, the Court reiterated that Article 8 applied in cases where a lack of access to public institutions prevented an individual from exercising his right to personal development and his right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world . In these circumstances, the Court would have expected the State to take measures to guarantee access to such institutions. However, in view of the general nature of Mr Farcaş’ allegations, there remained some doubt about his daily use of those institutions and about the direct and immediate connection between the measures required of the State and his private life.   Moreover, the Court noted that the situation in the town where he was living had gradually improved over the past few years, with the adoption of new legislation that encouraged integration of the disabled.   In addition, without underestimating the daily difficulties that he must have encountered, the Court pointed out that since 2004, shortly after he lodged his application, the applicant had been granted the right to a personal assistant and received an allowance on that basis.   Consequently, the Court also rejected that part of the application.   ***   The decision is available only in French and can be found on the Court’s Internet site ( www.echr.coe.int ). This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 30 21 58 77) Emma Hellyer (telephone: +33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   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.