DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ZÃœND

1. While I am in full agreement with the applicability of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 to the case at hand, I am unable to share the majority’s view that there has been no violation of these provisions.

2. The applicant, who is paralysed from the chest down and uses a wheelchair, has been unable to obtain access to two public buildings, one of them housing the municipality’s main arts and cultural centre, the other a youth centre, in which the hall is rented out for activities and events (see paragraphs 6, 7, 44 and 48 of the judgment). The applicant is therefore prevented from participating in the main cultural and social events of the municipality (see paragraph 48).

3. The lack of access to public buildings, within the context of the right to respect for private life, violates the prohibition of discrimination when the authorities do not comply with their positive obligation to take appropriate measures to enable the applicant to take part on an equal basis with others in cultural and social life (see paragraphs 59 and 60 of the judgment). This positive obligation is violated when the State refrains from making the “necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments” to accommodate and facilitate persons with disabilities, without imposing “a disproportionate or undue burden” on the State (see paragraph 60).

4. Admittedly, it takes time to draw up plans and continually to improve wheelchair access to public buildings. For this reason, a wide margin of appreciation is afforded to the State (see paragraph 58 of the judgment), which is nonetheless subject to the Court’s scrutiny. The Court’s review presupposes that the necessary adaptations of the buildings are planned and that the associated costs are calculated or estimated. Moreover, the Government should indicate whether and in what time frame the necessary improvements may be achieved. Without such a basis, it is impossible to state whether or not the margin of appreciation, even a wide one, has been violated.

5. It should also be reiterated that the domestic courts must provide sufficiently detailed reasons for their decisions, not least to enable the Court to carry out the European supervision entrusted to it (see among others, X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09 , § 107, ECHR 2013, and El Ghatet v. Switzerland , no. 56971/10 , § 47, 8 November 2016). This entails a thorough assessment of the applicant’s personal circumstances, a careful balancing of the competing interests and taking into account of the criteria set out in its case-law (see Ndidi v. the United Kingdom , no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017).

6. Turning to the present case, in the domestic proceedings a report concerning specific elements of the buildings’ accessibility was drawn up (see paragraph § 10 of the judgment). But neither the domestic courts nor the Government have given reasons why an improvement of the situation has not yet taken place or by what date such an improvement is planned. Likewise, no information has been given on the costs required, nor are the potential costs related to the available public funds and the municipality’s financial possibilities.

7. In the domestic proceedings the courts referred to the separation of powers and held that the municipalities were the only authorities with competence to decide on improvements to access to the buildings (see paragraphs 11 and 15 of the judgment). In the area of Convention rights, and in particular requirements for autonomous and non-discriminatory access to public buildings for people with disabilities, such a blanket referral to other authorities without any assessment by the courts themselves is insufficient (see, in contrast, Glaisen v. Switzerland ((dec.), no. 40447/13, § 53, 25 June 2019), where the Court considered that the Federal Supreme Court had set out sufficient grounds explaining why the situation faced by the applicant had not been serious enough to fall within the concept of discrimination). As such, the domestic courts’ finding violates Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 on procedural grounds alone.

8. Moreover, there are good reasons to assume that the respondent State did not take sufficient measures to remedy the tangible structural causes of inequality, in order to enable the applicant to exercise his right to private life on an equal basis with others. One of the buildings was “extensively renovated” between 2006 and 2014 (see paragraph 6 of the judgment). No explanation whatsoever is provided as to why, on that occasion, access for disabled people was not improved. Furthermore, several years have passed since the applicant brought civil proceedings in 2015 to challenge the lack of wheelchair access. Although the municipality gave priority to improving accessibility to educational and sports facilities (see paragraph 63), there would have been enough time also to improve access to the public buildings housing arts and cultural centres, which can in any event be described as similarly important (see, mutatis mutandis , Glaisen , cited above, § 48, where the Court did not rule out the possibility that for the applicant, who was paraplegic, the importance of going to the cinema was not confined merely to seeing a film that he could instead have watched at home, but also involved exchanges with other people).

9 It is for these reasons that I have voted to find a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.