Factsheet Roma and Travellers - European Court of Human Rights
Factsheet Roma and Travellers - European Court of Human Rights
Factsheet Roma and Travellers - European Court of Human Rights
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Factsheet</strong> – <strong>Roma</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Travellers</strong><br />
Secic v. Croatia<br />
31.05.2007<br />
Cobzaru v. <strong>Roma</strong>nia<br />
26.07.2007<br />
Angelova <strong>and</strong> Iliev v. Bulgaria<br />
26.07.2007<br />
Petropoulou-Tsakiris v. Greece<br />
6.12.2007<br />
Stoica v. <strong>Roma</strong>nia<br />
04.03.2008<br />
Police ill-treatment <strong>of</strong> a 14-year old during a clash between <strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>and</strong> <strong>Roma</strong> outside a<br />
bar <strong>and</strong> subsequent lack <strong>of</strong> adequate investigation. The applicant alleged that the illtreatment<br />
<strong>and</strong> decision not to prosecute the police <strong>of</strong>ficer who had beaten him were<br />
motivated by racial prejudice.<br />
Two violations <strong>of</strong> Article 3 (prohibition <strong>of</strong> inhuman or degrading treatment <strong>and</strong> lack <strong>of</strong><br />
effective investigation)<br />
Violation <strong>of</strong> Article 14 (prohibition <strong>of</strong> discrimination) on account <strong>of</strong> investigation having<br />
been racially biased<br />
Mižigárová v. Slovakia<br />
14.12.2010<br />
Death <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Roma</strong> man during a police interrogation. He was shot in the abdomen with<br />
the lieutenant’s service pistol <strong>and</strong> the investigation concluded that he had forcibly taken<br />
the gun from the lieutenant <strong>and</strong> shot himself.<br />
Violation <strong>of</strong> Article 2 (death / investigation).<br />
No violation <strong>of</strong> Article 14. The <strong>Court</strong> was not persuaded that the objective evidence was<br />
sufficiently strong in itself to suggest the existence <strong>of</strong> a racist motive for the incident.<br />
Fedorchenko <strong>and</strong> Lozenko v. Ukraine<br />
20.09.2012<br />
The applicants alleged that a police major had threatened <strong>and</strong> hit Mr Fedorchenko <strong>and</strong><br />
then set his house on fire. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) the applicants complained<br />
that five <strong>of</strong> their relatives had died in the fire <strong>and</strong> that the State authorities had failed to<br />
conduct a thorough <strong>and</strong> effective investigation into the circumstances <strong>of</strong> their death <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> the police major’s involvement in the arson attack. They further relied on Article 14,<br />
alleging that the crime had had racist motives due to their <strong>Roma</strong>ni ethnicity.<br />
Violation <strong>of</strong> Article 2 (investigation)<br />
No violation <strong>of</strong> Article 2 (death)<br />
Violation <strong>of</strong> Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 (investigation)<br />
Attacks on <strong>Roma</strong> villages <strong>and</strong> destruction <strong>of</strong> property<br />
Moldovan <strong>and</strong> Others v. <strong>Roma</strong>nia (no. 2)<br />
12.07.2005<br />
In September 1993 three <strong>Roma</strong> men were attacked in the village <strong>of</strong> Hădăreni by a large<br />
crowd <strong>of</strong> non-<strong>Roma</strong> villagers, including the local police comm<strong>and</strong>er <strong>and</strong> several <strong>of</strong>ficers:<br />
one burnt to death, the other two were beaten to death by the crowd. The applicants<br />
alleged that the police then encouraged the crowd to destroy other <strong>Roma</strong> properties: in<br />
total 13 <strong>Roma</strong> houses in the village were completely destroyed. Hounded from their<br />
village <strong>and</strong> homes, the applicants were then obliged to live in crowded <strong>and</strong> unsuitable<br />
conditions – cellars, hen-houses, stables. Following criminal complaints brought by the<br />
applicants, some were awarded damages ten years later. The <strong>Court</strong> could not examine<br />
the applicants’ complaints about the destruction <strong>of</strong> their houses <strong>and</strong> possessions or their<br />
expulsion from the village, because those events took place in September 1993, before<br />
4