- The applicant, Mr Mitică Costache, is a Romanian national of Roma ethnic origin, who was born in 25 June 1967 and lives in Slobozia. Since 1990 he has been involved in a long-term unregistered partnership with Ms C.C. The applicant is illiterate. He is represented before the Court by Mr Constantin Cojocariu, a lawyer practising in Iaşi. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu and subsequently by their Co-Agent, Ms Carmen Ciută, both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- In an initial letter submitted to the Court on 16 August 2005 the applicant complained of his living conditions unsuitable to his state of health. He subsequently reiterated this complaint and alleged the authorities’ failure in the provision of adequate housing in two application forms submitted on 20 October 2006 and 31 July 2007 respectively. None of the application forms were signed by the applicant; however the latter was accompanied by a signed cover letter.
- On 23 December 2005 the applicant was diagnosed with paralysis of the left side of the body caused by a stroke and on 28 July 2006 with chronic hepatitis and brain damage (sindrom cerebelos). Because of his medical condition, on 4 October 2006 the applicant was declared severely handicapped by the Commission for the evaluation of handicapped persons, functioning under the authority of the county council (“the commission”). Starting with 22 November 2006 he was offered a monthly pension of 158 Romanian lei (ROL). Since 2006, the applicant’s classification in the category of handicapped persons continued to be renewed each year until present.
- On 13 September 2007 the applicant was also diagnosed with epilepsy and severe brain deficiency.
- According to the report issued by the above-mentioned commission on 22 September 2010 , the applicant’s condition as a handicapped person was declared as less severe, as his health condition improved.
- The applicant and his partner, C.C., left the parental village house and moved to the town of Slobozia in 2001, after the death of his father. Facing major difficulties in finding affordable accommodation, around the same date, the applicant allegedly started formulating requests for social housing at various authorities, verbally or in writing through the help of C.C.
- According to the applicant, in the course of 2003 he moved together with his partner in a deserted horse stable belonging to the state which was unofficially allocated to them as social housing by the Slobozia municipality. The Government contested this allegation and submitted that the applicant and his partner started living in the stable of their own will during the year 2005.
- Welfare investigations conducted yearly by the social services at the request of the Commission for the evaluation of handicapped persons between August 2005 and September 2007 stated that the applicant was living in the town of Slobozia together with C.C., in one room “inside a stable in conditions unsuitable for living in”. The social services inspectors found that the above-mentioned housing lacked running water, heating, a toilet or a bathroom as well as electricity.
- On 24 November 2005 the Slobozia Local Council published a list of priorities for the allocation of social housing which included C.C. and her partner, supposedly the applicant.
- In a letter of 20 March 2007 sent by the County Prefect in response to the applicant’s complaints concerning his housing situation, the prefect mentioned that the applicant was living in a stable provided as social housing by the Slobozia Town Hall and informed him that his requests for more appropriate social housing had been sent to that institution in order to be dealt with.
- In the course of 2007 the Slobozia municipality finalised the rehabilitation of a building for the purposes of social housing. On 22 November 2007, C.C. together with the applicant, considered as a family member for the purposes of the tenancy contract, obtained an offer of a social tenancy and moved in a one-room apartment in the rehabilitated building.
- Article 19 of the Emergency Ordinance no. 102/1999 on the protection of the handicapped persons provides as follows:
- According to Article 41 and Annex 1 of the Law no. 114/1996 on housing, the minimum requirements for a social lodgement are the following: the existence of a space for resting, a space for preparing food, a bathroom and access to electricity, drinking water and sewage facilities.
- Invoking in substance Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the inhuman living conditions he had in a stable belonging to the State. The applicant further complained of the authorities’ failure to provide him with adequate housing suitable to his state of health.
- The applicant complained of the inhuman living conditions in the stable belonging to the authorities and their failure to provide him with adequate housing taking into consideration his state of health. He invoked in substance Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, which read as follows:
- The Government argued that this application was inadmissible for several reasons.
- On the merits of the complaint, the Government alleged that the applicant had freely chosen to live in the stable and did not inform the authorities of this decision. In addition, the applicant had not shown that his living conditions had caused him suffering incompatible with the Convention.
- The applicant contested the Government’s arguments. He mainly argued that he has victim status since his relationship with C.C. was regarded even by the authorities as a family and hence her actions with the purpose of obtaining adequate housing had been done in his name too. Moreover, taking into account his state of health, C.C. merely represented the applicant before the authorities.
- In the first place it must be noted that the Court is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case and it does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, no. 14967/89, § 44, 19 February 1998). Therefore, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaints in the present case fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention.
- Secondly, the Court notes that the Government raised several objections; however it is not necessary to examine them, as the application must in any event be rejected for the reasons mentioned below.
- As regards the general principles applicable in the current case, the Court recalls that in the case of Moldovan and Others v. Romania similar living conditions were held to amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 and gave also rise to the finding of a violation under Article 8 of the Convention due to the fact that they were caused by the authorities’ actions and were aggravated by the authorities’ discriminatory attitude towards the applicants (nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, §§ 109, 110 and 113, 12 July 2005).
- Therefore, in light of the above principles, the Court does not rule out the possibility that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, a sufficient link between the applicant’s living conditions as well as the lack of provision of adequate housing and the applicant’s private life would exist to attract the protection of Article 8.
- Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the Government admitted that the applicant and his partner lived until November 2007 in a former horse stable belonging to the local authorities, in conditions unsuitable for living. However, what is in dispute between the parties is the period spent by the applicant in this location, five years according to the applicant and two years according to the Government. In this respect, the Court notes that only the period from August 2005 to November 2007 is supported by documentary evidence, i.e. the reports drawn up by the social services and the social tenancy contract.
- Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Mitica COSTACHE v Romania - 25615/07 [2012] ECHR 663 (27 March 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/663.html
Cite as: [2012] ECHR 663
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
25615/07
Mitică COSTACHE
against
Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 March 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 August 2005,
Having regard to the fact that Mr C. Bîrsan, the judge elected in respect of Romania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28), and that the President of the Chamber appointed Mr M. Poalelungi, the judge elected in respect of Moldova, to sit in his place (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1),
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A. The circumstances of the case
1. Background of the application
2. The applicant’s health condition
3. The applicant’s housing situation
Following the applicant’s relocation, the stable was demolished by the municipality.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
“(1) With the purpose of ensuring the right to social security, protection of health and education, the adults with a handicap have the following rights:
(...)
p) priority for renting , building or buying a lodgement from the state;”
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 8
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
A. The Government
Firstly, the applicant did not explicitly raise his complaints in his letter of 16 August 2005 nor did he sign the two subsequent application forms.
Secondly, the Court had no competence to examine this application ratione materiae because the right invoked by the applicant was a socio economic right which is outside the scope of the Convention.
Further on the Government argued that the applicant lacks victim status because he did not register a written request for housing in his own name before the relevant local authorities.
The Government also submitted that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies namely, that he did not submit before the relevant authorities (the courts, the town hall or the prefect’s office) any request in order to obtain the accomplishment of their obligations as provided by the laws concerning the protection of handicapped persons.
Finally, the Government submitted that as soon as social housing became available in the respective municipality, the applicant was offered a social tenancy.
B. The applicant
With respect to the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies the applicant submitted that he had no effective remedies available at the relevant time and that the Government made a general statement in this respect without supporting it with examples of relevant case-law.
Further on, relying on the cases of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, 12 July 2005), the applicant maintained that the circumstances of his case fell within the scope of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
C. The Court’s assessment
The Court had also held that Article 8 does not guarantee the right to have one’s housing problem solved by the authorities (see, for example, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 99, 18 January 2001). It considers therefore that the scope of any positive obligation to house the homeless must be limited. Thus, for example, in the case of Marzari v. Italy (no. 36448/97, 4 May 1999) the Court stated that a refusal by the authorities to provide housing assistance to an individual suffering from a serious disease might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 because of the special link between such refusal and the private life of the individual.
It is undisputed that, during the time spent in this location, the applicant had numerous health problems (see paragraphs 3 and 4 supra).
However, the Court notes that the applicant did not prove that the authorities had allocated the stable as social housing. It appears from the file that the authorities merely permitted the applicant to live there, free of charge, until resolution of his housing situation. Therefore, the Court finds that the applicant’s living conditions were not the result of any activity carried out by, or in any sense, authorised by a local authority or linked to any unlawfulness in domestic terms (see mutatis mutandis, Moldovan and Others, cited above, López Ostra v. Spain, no. 16798/90, 9 December 1994; Fadeyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 55723/00, 16 October 2003).
The Court further notes that during this period, the applicant and his partner had access and received upon request monthly social allowances and free medical care, as provided by law for persons with the same social and health condition.
Finally, the Court observes that the authorities granted the applicant a social tenancy on 22 November 2007. In this respect the Court recalls its previous findings that in issues involving an assessment of the priorities in the context of the allocation of limited State resources, the national authorities are in a better position to carry out this assessment than an international Court (see O’Reilly and Others v. Ireland (dec.), no. 54725/00, 28 February 2002; Sentges v. the Netherlands, no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003).
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President