Information Note on the Court’s case-law 192

January 2016

Radi and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) - 34655/14

Decision 5.1.2016 [Section IV]

Article 4

Article 4-2

Compulsory labour

Forced labour

Conditions of employment of personal assistant caring for severely disabled relative: inadmissible

Facts – The second applicant had been severely disabled since a road traffic accident in 2001. He was in the care of his aunt (the first applicant), who was a qualified nurse and had a contract of employment with the local authority under which she provided permanent care and assistance for the second applicant in return for a salary equal to the national minimum wage. In 2012 t he first applicant filed a complaint against her employer before the County Court alleging in particular that she had not received various benefits to which she was entitled and could not take annual leave as she had to remain continuously at her nephew’s disposal. The County Court dismissed her claims, finding that she had received all the benefits to which she was entitled under the legislation governing personal assistants (Law no. 448/2006) and compensation for the loss of her annual leave.

In the Conve ntion proceedings, the first applicant argued that the personal-assistance scheme imposed a disproportionate burden – amounting to forced and compulsory labour in breach of Article 4 of the Convention – on the relatives of persons with disabilities acting as personal assistants.

Law – Article 4 § 2: The first applicant had accepted her work willingly, having voluntarily entered into a bilateral contract with the local authority. There was no indication of any sort of coercion either on the part of her nephe w or the authorities. She was remunerated for her work. The fact that she was not satisfied with the salary level did not equate to a lack of remuneration and she had been able to take the matter to the courts. She had been free to denounce the contract at any given moment without any consequences for her. She risked no penalties or loss of rights or privileges. Her studies (she held a law degree) and professional qualifications (twenty-five years’ experience as a nurse) opened up a wider range of opportuni ties for her on the employment market. Neither the uncertainty as to how she would in practice be able to find suitable work nor the manner in which the authorities might find an alternative solution for her nephew’s care altered her freedom to terminate t he contract. Accordingly, she had not been required to perform compulsory work.

Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes