Communicated on 8 March 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 49651/16 Virginia NEAGU against Romania lodged on 11 August 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Virginia Neagu , is a Romanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Galați . She is represented before the Court by Mr V. Pantea , her spouse.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 22 May 2012 the applicant was diagnosed with a permanent physical disability. At present she can only move around with the help of a wheelchair. Her spouse was appointed her legal guardian ( curator ) and personal assistant. They own the flat they live in.

According to the applicant, in 2013 the chairman of the owners ’ association of their building installed a doorstep at the main entrance of the building. Because of this, the applicant was unable to pass through the main entrance in her wheelchair unaccompanied.

On 17 June 2013 the applicant brought an action (hereinafter “the main action”) against the owners ’ association in order to compel it to render the building ’ s lift fully operational, to remove the doorstep, and to reposition the door ’ s hinges so that the access ramp would be aligned with the door in order to allow the applicant unhindered access in her wheelchair. She relied on the provisions of the Protection of People with Disabilities Act ( Legea privind protecţia şi promovarea drepturilor persoanelor cu handicap ).

1. The interim measures ( ordonan ţ a pre ş edin ţ ial ă )

At the same time as she brought the above-mentioned action against the owners ’ association, the applicant lodged an interim request for the same measures to be taken during the period of the court proceedings in respect of that action.

On 23 July 2013 the Galați District Court refused the interim request as ill-founded, as it considered that the photograph submitted to it by the parties seemed to indicate that the entrance door allowed access to a person in a wheelchair.

The applicant appealed , and in a final decision of 10 October 2013 the Galați County Court allowed the interim request and ordered the owners ’ association to remove the doorstep in question and to reposition the door in order to align it with the access ramp.

On 31 October 2013 the applicant sought the services of a bailiff for the enforcement of the interim order of 10 October 2013. The bailiff failed to enforce that order.

The applicant lodged a criminal complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the interim order of 10 October 2013. She accused the bailiff of abuse of office and the owners ’ association of non-compliance with the court ’ s judgment. The complaint in respect of both the bailiff and the owners ’ association was eventually dismissed, respectively, on 30 May 2014 by the prosecutor ’ s office attached to the Galați Court of Appeal and on 4 June 2015 by the prosecutor ’ s office attached to the Galați District Court. The prosecutors noted that the bailiffs had informed the applicant ’ s representative that in order for the enforcement proceedings to continue, the applicant had to request the court ’ s approval for her to undertake the ordered works herself (and to subsequently claim reimbursement for the expenses thereof from the owners ’ association). As the applicant had failed to do so, the bailiff could not be held accountable for the non-enforcement of the court order and had therefore not committed a criminal act.

2. The main proceedings

On 18 December 2014 the Galați District Court dismissed the main action lodged by the applicant against the owners ’ association. The court visited the applicant ’ s building and examined the access facilities for wheelchairs. On the basis of the evidence in the file, including its own observations, the court found that the lift had been fixed and that the applicant ’ s access to the building had not been obstructed. In particular, everyone but the applicant ’ s husband had proved able to push the wheelchair over the step at the entrance door. In addition, the applicant could access the building if her personal assistant opened the second half of the main entrance door, which normally remained closed, and angled the wheelchair slightly to the left when passing through the door. The County Court considered that the applicant ’ s requests were excessive and would affect in a disproportionate manner the rights of the other flat owners. Moreover, the modifications demanded by the applicant would hinder the “thermal comfort” ( confortul termic ) of the flats on the ground floor. The court also ordered the applicant to pay 600 Romanian lei (RON) to the owners ’ association as reimbursement for its costs.

The applicant appealed, arguing mainly that her access to the building continued to be impaired.

In a decision of 21 October 2015 served on the applicant on 12 February 2016, the Galați County Court allowed the appeal only in so far as the level of costs was concerned and reduced it to RON 200. The County Court upheld the remainder of the judgment given by the District Court. The decision was final.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The evolution of the legislation concerning the protection afforded to persons with disabilities, as well as the relevant domestic practice, is detailed in Gherghina v. Romania (( dec. ) [GC], no. 42219/07, 9 July 2015).

COMPLAINT

Relying on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she cannot enjoy a normal life because she cannot leave her flat because the main entrance to her residential building is obstructed . She deplores the fact that the domestic courts gave precedence to the comfort of the other flat owners in the building and ignored completely her own situation, and moreover failed to consider any alternative that would strike a balance between the competing interests.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

In particular, have the domestic authorities (courts and bailiffs) struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights on the ground of her disability, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 (see, for instance, Glor v. Switzerland , no. 13444/04, § 53, ECHR 2009) ?