Published on 3 July 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 22415/22 Ana TOADER against Romania lodged on 3 May 2022 communicated on 14 June 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns allegations that the domestic authorities wrongly assessed the severity of the applicant’s disability, thus depriving her of the possibility to benefit from a personal assistant, which drastically reduced her personal autonomy.

The applicant is an 89-year-old woman, suffering from mono-paresis caused by a leg fracture. According to various medical and social investigation reports, she is bedridden and needs help with feeding and personal hygiene. She is fully dependent on support for dressing, preparing food, moving and transport, housework, grocery shopping, using means of communication, and taking care of her finances and medication. The social investigation report also mentions that the applicant needs a personal assistant.

On 2 October 2020 the Neamț Commission for the Evaluation of Adults with Disabilities (“the Neamț Commission”, here-after) issued a certificate establishing that the applicant’s medical situation could not be assimilated to disability ( nu se încadrează în grad de handicap ), according to the criteria established by Ministry Order no. 726/1992/2007. The applicant requested for this certificate to be annulled and for a new one to be issued, attesting that she had a severe disability necessitating a personal assistant. By a judicial decision of 2 April 2021 the Neamţ County Court allowed the applicant’s request and ordered the Neamț Commission to issue a new certificate acknowledging that the applicant was suffering from a severe disability and that she needed a personal assistant ( handicap grav cu asistent personal ). Upon appeal of the Neamț Commission, by a final decision of 19 October 2021 (served on 5 November 2021) the Bacău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that her disease could not be considered a disability, under the Romanian applicable legislation, as it was not mentioned in the Ministry Order which listed medical conditions considered as disabilities.

Invoking Article 8 of the Convention taken alone and, in substance, also in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic court failed to undertake a complex evaluation of her disability and medical condition.

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, with regard to the manner in which the Bacău Court of Appeal (final decision of 19 October 2021) assessed her situation?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights in connection with her age and health situation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?