Oct 19, 2012 - of Moldova and Russia (application nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06), which is final1, the European Co
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 385 (2012) 19.10.2012
The forced closure of Moldovan/Romanian language schools in Transdniestria fell within Russia’s jurisdiction In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (application nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06), which is final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the Republic of Moldova, and, by 16 votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the Russian Federation. The case concerned the complaint by children and parents from the Moldovan community in Transdniestria about the effects of a language policy adopted in 1992 and 1994 by the separatist regime forbidding the use of the Latin alphabet in schools and the subsequent measures taken to enforce the policy. Those measures included the forcible eviction of pupils and teachers from Moldovan/Romanian-language schools as well as forcing the schools to close down and reopen in different premises. The Court found that the separatist regime could not survive without Russia’s continued military, economic and political support and that the closure of the schools therefore fell within Russia’s jurisdiction under the Convention. The Republic of Moldova, on the other hand, had not only refrained from supporting the regime but had made considerable efforts to support the applicants themselves by paying for the rent and refurbishment of the new school premises as well as for all equipment, teachers’ salaries and transport costs.
Principal facts The applicants are 170 Moldovan nationals who live in the “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (“MRT”), an unrecognised separatist entity which split from Moldova in September 1990. In September 1992 the “MRT” adopted the “Law on languages”, which stated that “Moldavian” – Moldovan/Romanian, one of the official languages within the “MRT” (the others being Russian and Ukrainian) - had to be written with the Cyrillic and not Latin alphabet. Failure to comply with that requirement was punishable as an administrative offence. In August 1994 the “MRT” authorities forbade the use of the Latin alphabet in schools and started requiring all schools to register and start using an “MRT”-approved curriculum and the Cyrillic alphabet. The “MRT” authorities then began taking steps to close down all schools using the Latin alphabet. The applicants are among the children who were studying at such schools,
1 Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). All final judgments are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
notably Evrica School in Rîbniţa, Alexandru cel Bun School in Tighina, Bender, and Ştefan cel Mare School in Grigoriopol, as well as their parents. Thus, in August 2002 police forcibly evicted the pupils and teachers from the Ştefan cel Mare secondary school. It was not allowed to reopen in the same building and was subsequently transferred to premises some 20 kilometres away, in Moldovan-controlled territory. The children and staff were evicted from the Evrica School in July 2004. The same month the Alexandru cel Bun School was threatened with closure and disconnected from electricity and water supplies. Both schools were required to move to less convenient and less well equipped premises in their home towns at the start of the following academic year, relying on help from the Moldovan Government, which pays the teachers’ salaries and provides educational material as well as a school bus for the Alexandru cel Bun School which cannot be reached by public transport. All the applicants alleged that those who persisted with an education in Moldovan/Romanian-language schools had to accept that the quality of education was affected by lack of adequate premises, long journeys to and from school (with bag searches, identity checks and harassment from “MRT” officials for those attending school in Moldovan-controlled territory), shortage of materials, no access to extracurricular activities as well as on-going harassment, vandalism of school premises, intimidation (such as parents being threatened with losing their jobs or parental rights) and verbal abuse. The alternative was for the children to attend a “Moldavian” language school, where teaching was carried out in the artificial combination of Romanian, written in Cyrillic. Since this language combination was not used or recognised anywhere else in the world, teaching materials dated back to Soviet times and children faced difficulties in pursuing higher education. Between 2002 and 2009 the numbers of pupils in Evrica and Alexandru cel Bun schools virtually halved; and, between 2000 and 2009 the number of pupils in Ştefan cel Mare secondary school was reduced by three quarters. The applicants and the Moldovan Government submitted that these events had to be seen in the context of the historical background of the region and notably the Transdniestrian conflict which, starting with a movement of resistance to Moldovan independence in 1989, had broken out in violent clashes between the Transdniestrian separatist forces and the Moldovan security forces in 1991. The Moldovan army was prevented from regaining control of Transdniestria by a number of military units, originally deployed from the Soviet armed forces and which had remained on Moldovan territory, joining the separatists and providing them with arms and ammunition, notably from an ammunition store based in Colbaşna in Transdniestria (one of the largest in Europe). They further argued that, despite international agreements to remove the arms store, the Russian military and armaments presence in Transdniestria continued to block the efforts to resolve the conflict and helped keep the separatist regime in power. They also alleged that the separatist regime had only survived as a result of financial support from Russia, in the form of subsidised gas supplies and millions of United States dollars every year in the payment of old age pensions and financial assistance to schools, hospitals and prisons. They, on the other hand, had never supported or sustained it. The Russian Government submitted that the facts concerning the armed conflict in Transdniestria were not relevant to the applicants’ case, and that there was no evidence of any direct Russian involvement in what had happened to the applicants’ schools. Indeed, they had been involved in the schools’ crisis in the role of mediator. It further emphasised that its military presence in Transdniestria had been insignificant during the relevant period, comprising 1,000 servicemen to guard the arms store at Colbaşna and 1,125 soldiers as part of the internationally-agreed peace-keeping force. It denied providing any economic support to the “MRT” and argued that Russian assistance with
2
catering in schools, prisons and hospitals was fully transparent and could be compared with humanitarian aid.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complained about the forcible closure of their schools by the separatist regime in 2002 and 2004 and the measures taken by those authorities to harass and intimidate them because of their choice to pursue the children’s education at Moldovan/Romanianlanguage schools. The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 December 2004, on 25 October 2004 and on 4 April 2006 respectively. A hearing was held in public on 9 June 2009 and a Chamber of seven judges declared the case partly admissible on 15 June 2010. On 14 December 2010 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. A Grand Chamber hearing was held on 25 January 2012. Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows: Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President, Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Josep Casadevall (Andorra), Nina Vajić (Croatia), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Lech Garlicki (Poland), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (the Republic of Moldova), Helen Keller (Switzerland), and also Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar.
Decision of the Court Jurisdiction The Republic of Moldova As the Court has previously held (in the case Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia of 20042), Transdniestria was within Moldova’s jurisdiction because Moldova was the territorial State. Therefore, although Moldova had no effective control over the acts of the “MRT” in Transdniestria, the fact that the region was recognised under public international law as part of Moldova’s territory obliged it to use all legal and diplomatic means in its power to continue to guarantee the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms 2
Concerning the detention of four men in the “MRT” for terrorist activities allegedly committed during the Transdniestrian conflict of 1991-1992.
3
defined in the European Convention to those living there. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that the facts complained of by the applicants fell within the Republic of Moldova’s jurisdiction. Russia The Court found that the historical background had a significant bearing on the applicants’ case. The key events took place between 2002 and 2004, which fell within the same period of time considered by the Court in the Ilaşcu judgment. In that judgment the Court held that the applicants had come within the jurisdiction of Russia given the fact that the Russian authorities had not only contributed to establishing the separatist regime in Transdniestria but also to its survival through military, economic, financial and political support. In the present case, the Russian Government had not provided the Court with any evidence to show that those findings had been unreliable. In particular, the fact that Russia had still not removed the arms store at Colbaşna, on Moldovan territory, despite the commitments it had made at international level, sent a signal – to the “MRT” leaders, the Moldovan Government and international observers – of its continued military support for the separatist regime. In addition, the population of Transdniestria were dependent on free or highly subsidised gas supplies, pensions and other financial aid. In particular, the Russian Government had not denied that the Russian public corporation Gazprom had supplied gas to the region and that the “MRT” had paid for only a tiny fraction of the gas consumed, both by individual households and by the large industrial complexes established in Transdniestria, many of them found by the Court to be Russian-owned. Nor had the Russian Government disputed the statistic, supplied by the Moldovan Government, that only approximately 20% of the population of the “MRT” were economically active, which threw light on the importance for the local economy of Russian pensions and other aid. Therefore, the Court maintained its findings in the Ilaşcu judgment that, during the period 2002-2004, the “MRT” had been able to survive only because of Russian military, economic and political support. Accordingly, the Court held, by 16 votes to one, that the facts complained of by the applicants in the present case fell within Russia’s jurisdiction.
Right to education (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1) The Court considered that the forced closure of the applicants’ schools and the subsequent measures of harassment constituted interferences with their right of access to pre-existing educational institutions as well as their right to be educated in their national language. There was no evidence to suggest that those measures pursued a legitimate aim. The Republic of Moldova’s responsibility As in the Ilaşcu judgment the Court found that the Moldovan Government had refrained from supporting the separatist regime and taken all the political and judicial measures at its disposal to re-establish control over the Transdniestrian territory. It also found that the Moldovan Government had made considerable efforts to support the applicants. In particular, following the requisitioning of the schools’ former buildings by the “MRT”, the Moldovan Government have paid for the rent and refurbishment of new premises as well as for all equipment, staff salaries and transport costs, thereby enabling the schools to continue operating and the children to continue learning in Moldovan/Romanian, albeit in far from ideal conditions. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Republic of Moldova had taken appropriate and sufficient measures, on a general level, to re-establish its control over the Transdniestrian territory and, on an individual level, to ensure that the
4
applicants’ right to education had been respected. There had therefore been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Moldova. Russia’s responsibility The Court accepted that there was no evidence of any direct Russian involvement in or approbation of either the measures taken against the applicants and their schools or the language policy in general. Nonetheless, in accordance with previously-developed principles from its case-law, the Court having already established that Russia exercised effective control over the “MRT” during the period in question, it was not necessary to determine whether it exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the subordinate local administration. Russia was in effect responsible for the violation of the applicants’ right to education as the “MRT” could not survive without Russia’s continued military, economic and political support. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 Protocol No. 1 in respect of the Russian Federation.
Other articles Given the conclusions under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 8 (12 votes to five) or under Article 14 in conjunction with either Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 or Article 8 (11 votes to six).
Just satisfaction (Article 41) The Court held, by 16 votes to one, that Russia was to pay each applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 50,000 for costs and expenses to all the applicants, jointly.
Separate opinions Judges Tulkens, Vajić, Berro-Lefèvre, Bianku, Poalelungi and Keller expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion. Judge Kovler also expressed a partly dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment. The judgment is available both in English and French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en. Press contacts
[email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
5
