JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES WOJTYCZEK AND PACZOLAY

1. We respectfully disagree with points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the instant judgment. In our view, the whole application is inadmissible. In any event, we consider that Article 8 has not been violated in the present case.

2. In order for Article 8 to come into effect, an attack on a person must attain a certain level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to the personal enjoyment of the right to respect for one’s private life (see Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania , no. 41288/15, § 109 in fine , 14 January 2020). Measures taken in the field of education may in certain circumstances affect the right to respect for private life, but not every act or measure which may be said to affect adversely the moral integrity of a person necessarily gives raise to such an interference ( Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247 C).

3. In the instant case, we consider that, although the student, F.O. felt distress related to the language used by R.V., the teacher, the intensity of verbal abuse was of a lower scale of intensity. There is no evidence that the assault had left any long-lasting or serious effects on the applicant’s development and well-being. As a result, the assault established in the instant case does not reach the threshold of applicability of Article 8.

We would also note that medical reports and certificates submitted by litigants, at least in certain countries, are not always fully reliable. There is no evidence that any other pupils in the same class were affected in a similar way by the teacher’s behaviour. We have some doubts as to whether the causal link between the impugned assault, on the one hand, and the anxiety and stress disorders diagnosed in respect of the applicant, on the other hand, can be considered as clearly established (see paragraph 9).

We further note that on 14 December 2011 the applicant’s father attended a meeting with the head teacher. According to a report from the meeting prepared by the head teacher, the applicant’s father had explained that his son was now satisfied with his relationship with R.V., and that their conflict had been settled.

4. In our view, lowering the threshold of applicability of Article 8, thus triggering a flow of applications to the Court lodged by pupils complaining about their relations with teachers, will not necessarily advance human rights protection.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KTISTAKIS

1. I regret not to be able to agree with the majority of the Court that the treatment complained of by the applicant was in itself serious enough to give rise to an issue under Article 8 of the Convention (see Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania , no. 41288/15, § 109 , 14 January 2020). While having no intention of being seen to condone in any way the conduct of R.V., and stressing that discipline plays an important role in an educational setting, I conclude that the complaint must be dismissed as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention, for the reasons stated below.

2. The applicant was born in November 1993 and the facts of the case took place in September 2011. The applicant was very close to reaching the age of majority. Moreover, according to Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the age of majority is relative: “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”. Further, even though the applicant was still a minor at the material time – just two months short of his majority – he could not really be considered as a typical vulnerable human being.

3. There is no evidence that the conduct of R.V. left any long-standing or serious effect on the applicant’s development and well-being. It is to be noted that the applicant argued that all his visits to the doctor since September 2011 were the result of stress caused by the alleged harassment. However, from the applicant’s medical chart, submitted by the Government (and not contested by the applicant), it can be noted that the applicant consulted the doctor on 7 different occasions in the year 2009, followed by 10 times in 2010, 9 times in 2011 (including 26 October 2011, 2 November 2011 and 20 December 2011), 4 times in 2012, 3 times in 2013 and 5 times in 2014. Taking it into consideration that the applicant suffered from asthma before the impugned events, it is to be concluded that, at least, R.V.’s conduct towards him did not worsen his medical condition. In any event, because of his chronic disease (asthma), the number of the applicant’s visits to the doctor is not a reliable indicator upon which to draw a conclusion that R.V.’s behaviour had inflicted on him any additional medical issue.

4. Just after the impugned events related to the mathematics teacher R.V., the applicant received the highest mark in mathematics [very good – (4)], while the average grade in mathematics for that academic year was (3), similar to the grade he had obtained in all previous years. Moreover, the applicant concluded this year (2011-2012) with a very good overall achievement, as well as in the third grade, namely better than the first two grades (facts submitted by the Government and not contested by the applicant). Thus there is no evidence that the applicant had suffered any particular consequences in relation to his annual school performance.

5. Although the applicant was not the only pupil to be late for the mathematics class with teacher R.V., no other classmate complained about the conduct of R.V.

6. Finally, according to what the majority have accepted, the conduct of R.V. was “verbal, not a very high scale of intensity and did not generate into further, more systematic, harassment” (paragraph 87 of the judgment).