SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 786/14 ESÉLYT A HÁTRÁNYOS HELYZETŰ GYEREKEKNEK ALAPÍTVÁNY against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 25 March 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller, President, András Sajó , Egidijus Kūris , judges , and Stanley Naismith , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Esélyt A Hátrányos Helyzetű Gyerekeknek Alapítvány , is a foundation registered under Hungarian law, with its seat Budapest . She was represented before the Court by Mrs L. Farkas , a lawyer practising in Budapest .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 31 October 2008 the applicant entity lodged an actio popularis with the Győr - Moson -Sopron County Regional Court under the Equal Treatment Act . It sued the Municipality of Győr for the alleged segregation of Romani children in a local primary school.

In its judgment of 30 September 2010 the court recognised the applicant organisation ’ s standing to introduce an actio popularis in the name of the children concerned . It established that the M unicipality segregated Romani children in primary school education on the basis on their origin and social situation and ordered it to terminat e the unlawful situation.

On 4 October 2011 the Győr Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, upheld the first-instance decision as to the finding s of discrimination on the basis on ethnic origin, but reversed it concerning the remainder of the claim.

The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

In its decision of 12 May 2012 the Supr eme Court established that the M unicipality exercised discriminatory treatment against children both on the basis of their ethnic origin and financial situation. Nonetheless, it dismissed the applicant ’ s request as to the termination of the unlawful situation.

On 13 August 2012 the applicant organisation introduced a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court which was declared inadmissible on 17 June 2013 for the lack of the applicant ’ s standing (service: 20 June 2013), since the applicant organisation was not directly affected by the alleged violation of constitutional rights.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant organisation complained about the infringement of its right to access to a court in that the Constitutional Court declared its complaint inadmissible for the lack of standing.

It also alleged a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention in that the domestic authorities did not fulfil their positive obligation to provide an effective remedy against segregation in education.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention about the decisions adopted by the ordinary courts in the discrimination dispute and, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the Constitutional Court ’ s refusal to entertain its constitutional complaint.

The Court notes that the subject matter of the case was a court action and the ensuing constitutional complaint , both concerning the alleged discrimination against persons different from the applicant organisation. It follows that it cannot be said that the applicant entity was directly affected by the measures complained of. It is true that the Constitutional Court ’ s decision formally concerned the applicant organisation itself; however, its denial of locus standi was based on criteria virtually identical to that of the Court (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 33, ECHR 2008), namely the lack of being directly affected.

In these circumstances, the Court considers that the application as a whole relates to an actio popularis and is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Stanley Naismith Helen Keller Registrar President