THIRD SECTION
Application no. 289/14
Ștefan-Moshe STOIAN and Luminița STOIAN
against Romania
lodged on 19 December 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicants, Mr Ștefan-Moshe Stoian (the first applicant) and Ms Luminița Stoian (the second applicant), his mother, are Romanian nationals who were born in 2001 and 1967 respectively and live in Bucharest. They are represented before the Court by Mr C. Cojocariu and Ms C. Rădulescu, lawyers practising in Orpington (United Kingdom) and Bucharest respectively.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. The applicants’ background
3. The first applicant has spastic quadriplegia, a medical condition characterised by impaired function in the limbs but which does not affect his mental capacities. From the age of one, he was registered as having a severe disability (grad de handicap sever) requiring a personal assistant.
4. Owing to his disability, the first applicant has undergone complex and ongoing medical treatment aimed at maintaining the mobility of his limbs and compensating for abnormalities in muscle tone. He has undergone regular surgery, has been admitted on several occasions to rehabilitation clinics in Romania and Ukraine, has undergone neurological and orthopaedic tests in Israel and is under constant physiotherapy. He relies on assistive devices to walk, including electric wheelchairs, mopeds and tricycles. His health is monitored at M.C. Children’s Hospital in Bucharest.
5. The second applicant is a single parent and sole breadwinner. She repeatedly informed the authorities that she could not afford to act as her son’s personal assistant as she needed to work in order to meet the family’s needs. Consequently, she asked them to appoint a personal assistant, in accordance with the applicable law.
6. In 2004 the first applicant was enrolled at nursery school, but was forced to leave after only three days, when the school manager informed the mother that her institution “did not do handicap”.
7. From 2007 to April 2013, on the authorities’ recommendation, the first applicant attended classes at School no. 131, a mainstream educational facility for primary and secondary education (children aged six to fourteen). The school building was located sixty metres from the applicants’ home.
2. The facilities offered to the first applicant in School no. 131
8. When the first applicant started school, the school building had no facilities for disabled persons. A new gate had to be pierced in the fence facing the street where the applicants lived and a concrete strip was laid leading to the students’ entrance in the main building. The toilets were not equipped for disabled children and a cubicle was improvised in the girls’ toilet on the first floor. Later, in 2013, a special toilet on the ground floor was equipped for the needs of children with disabilities, but the first applicant still required support when using it. The sports facilities were not adapted for the use of disabled children and the first applicant could neither take part in class sports activities nor do the exercises recommended by his physicians in order to help with his muscle tone.
9. The second applicant, at her own expense, arranged for small adjustments to be made to the classroom and toilet, such as rails on the walls, to facilitate her son’s movements.
10. Because there were no access ramps in the school, the first applicant could not on his own reach the upper floors of the building, where some important facilities were located, such as: the doctor’s office, the psychologist’s office, the laboratories and the after-school care facilities. The second applicant had to spend significant amounts of time at the school carrying him and the walking devices to the upper floors, and helping him go to the toilet, do the mandatory physical exercise recommended by his physicians and carry his school books, lunchbox and other items. In the first applicant’s first four years at school, in addition to his mother’s support, his classmates or the school staff also helped him with some of these tasks.
11. The absence of adequate medical personnel at the school and the lack of access to medical facilities during school hours contributed to the worsening of the first applicant’s physical condition. The benefits he gained from surgery were lost and he became less autonomous and more reliant on support from others.
12. In time the situation generated tensions between the applicants, on the one hand, and the school staff, the other children and their parents on the other hand.
13. Because of the lack of accessibility of public buildings, the first applicant could not be included in some of the school activities, such as outings. No alternative activities were provided for him. The second applicant’s attempts to have extracurricular activities arranged for her son remained futile; for example, although the child was admitted to piano lessons, the building housing the piano club was inaccessible to wheelchairs.
3. Incidents in school concerning the first applicant
14. In 2011 (his first year of secondary school) the first applicant’s classmates started slapping and insulting him, calling him names and tampering with his wheelchair. The applicants regularly reported these incidents, but their complaints were not investigated by the school administration.
15. During the 2011/12 school year, the headmaster specifically asked the staff and other children to stop helping the first applicant, as they were not qualified to handle the risks involved or because it was not within the staff’s responsibility to do so. On 14 October 2011 the school cleaners sent a letter to the headmaster informing him that they would no longer assist the first applicant in using the toilet. As a consequence, the child was left to soil himself on several occasions, becoming the target of ridicule among children. Eventually, faced with hostility from his peers and school staff, the first applicant refrained from using the toilet during classes; this had negative repercussions on his health.
4. The school’s attitude towards the second applicant
16. On 1 February 2012 the first applicant’s teachers held a meeting with the school administration and his mother to discuss his situation. The second applicant complained that the school had not made enough efforts to integrate her son. The headmaster explained that the school counsellor and the teacher responsible for the class (diriginte) had worked out a set of rules and activities that would allow all the class to be involved in assisting the first applicant during his time in school and would at the same time contribute to the pupils’ civic education. The teachers urged the school administration to set out clear rules to be respected by the second applicant while acting as her son’s personal assistant in the school premises.
17. On 1 March 2012 the school management organised a meeting with the pupils’ parents from the first applicant’s class, in order to discuss the second applicant’s presence in the school. The teachers complained that she disturbed their teaching because, despite specific requests, she continued to arrive late or to leave during lessons, or to use her laptop in class. Parents further complained that she was mean to the other children and inhibited them by photographing and filming them during school time, and expected them all to assist her son with his needs. The second applicant explained that she had to be strict towards the other pupils because they often offended her. At this meeting, the headmaster expressed the view that both the school and the pupils, together with their parents, had done everything within their power to help integrate the first applicant. He barred the second applicant from the school premises and suggested that until the conflict between the parties was settled, it would be better for her son to be home-schooled.
18. On 5 March 2012 the school administration set out the rules for personal assistants in school, but the second applicant refused on several occasions to acknowledge them and argued that they lacked any legal basis.
19. On 3 April 2013 the second applicant was in the school helping her son do his recommended exercise (standing up supported by the rail near the blackboard) and carrying his lunchbox, when the class teacher warned her that her presence was not tolerated and that the headmaster had alerted the authorities. She refused to leave the premises as long as her child was not helped by someone else. At 3.30 p.m. two police officers entered the classroom and forcibly removed the second applicant in full view of the pupils, including her son, who was left standing alone by the blackboard. Once outside the classroom the police officers hit and threatened the second applicant, handcuffed her and took her to the police station. They asked her to stop filing complaints as that would not make a difference, and informed her that the headmaster would not allow her or her son back in the school. The police officers gave the second applicant a formal warning for refusing to leave the school premises. She was released at 6 p.m. and went straight to the school to pick up her son and then to the hospital to undergo a forensic examination. The medical certificate issued on that occasion established that the second applicant had suffered paresis (pareză de plex brachial stâng) and bruises on her legs, requiring forty-five days’ medical treatment. The first applicant experienced psychological and physical trauma; he suffered from urinary incontinence, anal bleeding, weight loss and arthrogryposis, became depressed and had to undergo psychological counselling.
20. After the incident on 3 April 2013 the school administration installed an extra lock on the gate normally used by the first applicant, thus preventing him in practice from having access to the premises.
5. Requests for assistance for the first applicant
(a) Educational support
21. On 25 October 2007 the Child Protection Agency recommended that the first applicant continue his education at School no. 131 and be given the assistance of a support teacher. The recommendation was reiterated on 25 August 2011 in relation to secondary education. By the same act, the Child Protection Agency decided that the first applicant should be granted educational support in the form of a support teacher (professor de sprijin) within School no. 131. The decision was effective immediately and the applicant was to have the benefit of a support teacher throughout his secondary education.
The support teacher was meant to come to school on a weekly basis but her presence was erratic. She resigned from her position at the beginning of 2012 but was replaced only in September 2012, at the beginning of the following school year. The new support teacher met the first applicant for a total of two hours during the period from September 2012 to April 2013.
22. On 8 February 2013 the Child Protection Agency drafted a plan for the first applicant’s physical rehabilitation. It listed the rights provided for by law, such as the right to special allowances, free public transport, parking in spaces reserved for people with disabilities, physiotherapy and the following arrangements at school: a specially adapted curriculum and methods of testing, appropriate physical education, appropriate facilities in the school building to ensure accessibility, and assistance from a school nurse. It recommended that a personal assistant be hired by its Human Resources Department and that the accessibility of public infrastructure be improved (accessibility of kerbs, pedestrian crossings and pathways, public transport stations and parks).
23. The school drew up several personal intervention plans to help adapt the school facilities to the child’s special needs.
24. The school had to provide the first applicant with reasonable accommodation in the classroom (a specially adapted desk), and an adapted timetable and testing methods. The child was entitled to a 50 % increase in the time allocated for written exams and was partially exempted from attending school. It appears that no permanent measures were taken by the school, and the headmaster argued that the teachers’ contractual terms, as well as the school timetable, did not allow the first applicant’s needs to be accommodated.
25. Throughout the period when the first applicant attended School no. 131, the authorities admitted on frequent occasions that the mainstream schools were not equipped to deal with disabled students. They made concerted and ongoing efforts to convince the applicants to accept home schooling. The second applicant refused, and sought to have a personal assistant or support teacher appointed.
(b) Personal assistant
26. In 2011 the second applicant asked the authorities to appoint a personal assistant for her son to provide him with support, in particular during school hours. She explained that she could not act as his personal assistant, as she had to work for a living. On 15 September 2011 the school administration also informed the Directorate General for Social Assistance and Child Protection (Directia Generala de Asistenţă Socială şi Protecţia Copilului – “the Child Protection Agency”) that in the absence of a personal assistant, the first applicant could not safely continue his studies in a mainstream school. The Child Protection Agency initially denied that the first applicant had the right to a personal assistant, then considered the second applicant to be the child’s personal assistant; to date it has failed to identify and employ one, despite a decision of 19 July 2011 in which the Bucharest County Court ordered the Child Protection Agency of the Fifth District to identify and hire a personal assistant for the first applicant (see paragraph 41 below).
(c) School nurse
27. On 19 October 2011 the second applicant asked the school to hire a nurse who could assist her son with his needs, as an alternative to the appointment of a personal assistant. The Bucharest Department of Public Health (Direcţia de Sănătate Publică), a decentralised agency of the Ministry of Public Health, requested that a nurse be hired for the 2012/13 school year, but no such appointment was made before the first applicant dropped out of school in April 2013 (see paragraph 7 above).
(d) Physiotherapist
28. The first applicant’s physicians set out recommendations for the school and other authorities about the child’s medical needs, emphasising the importance of regular physiotherapy and occupational therapy, including during school hours. They advised against keeping the patient in the same position for long periods of time, as that could cause muscle rigidity and discomfort, thus compromising his rehabilitation and, in time, leading to deformities. They recommended that the child alternate periodically between sitting and standing up.
29. In 2008 the second applicant requested the presence of a physiotherapist at the school to assist her son with his needs for physical exercise. The Child Protection Agency assigned the case to the physiotherapist who was practising at Special School No. 9 (a special remedial school designed primarily for children with mental disabilities – “the remedial school”), but that institution refused to comply with the order.
30. In November 2012 a physiotherapist was assigned to come to the school to work with the first applicant. During the second term of the 2012/13 school year, they met for three sessions of one hour each.
31. The first applicant was not offered any occupational therapy, as the school lacked suitably qualified staff.
6. Attempts to return to school after 3 April 2013
32. After the incident of 3 April 2013 the applicants were afraid to return to the school. They sought help from the authorities to mediate in the conflict and sought assurances that the child would be looked after, which the school refused to give.
The first applicant continued to go to school accompanied by his maternal aunt, but at the end of April 2013 the school administration questioned her authority to accompany the child and refused to let them in. The first applicant was effectively expelled from school.
33. The applicants travelled 700 kilometres to a school affiliated to the rehabilitation hospital in Băile Felix, Bihor County, where the child sat his final exams and graduated from the sixth grade.
34. From May to July 2013 the second applicant applied for a transfer on several occasions, in order to find a new school for her son closer to home. Most of her applications were rejected on the ground that the schools concerned were not equipped to accommodate disabled children. The remedial school for disabled children refused him as well, on the ground that it catered for only pupils with mental disabilities.
35. The first applicant was finally admitted to School no. 148 from September 2013. The new school is located seven kilometres from his home and it is particularly difficult for the applicants to get there because of the lack of accessibility of the road infrastructure and public transport and the lack of dedicated parking spaces for disabled persons. The school building itself is better equipped for disabled pupils than School no. 131: it has specially adapted toilets, access ramps and an appropriate sports hall. A school nurse was hired in January 2014 specifically to assist the first applicant at school.
36. In the new school, the authorities refused to make any special arrangements with regard to the first applicant’s attendance, testing and learning procedures. For these reasons the first applicant is behind with his exams. He continues to be left without medical treatment during school hours and does not have up-to-date personalised assessment documents.
7. Complaints and litigation
(a) With the administrative authorities
37. The second applicant complained on numerous occasions that the public infrastructure was not accessible to wheelchair users. She asked the authorities to ensure uninterrupted access along the public roads from the applicants’ home to educational or medical facilities. In practice, the applicants encountered obstacles such as: high kerbs at pedestrian crossings; pavements blocked by cars, kiosks or other stands and snow in winter; few dedicated parking spaces for disabled persons and those that existed being wrongfully used by unauthorised persons; public transport stations and vehicles being inaccessible to wheelchairs; and stray dogs. In these circumstances, the applicants frequently had to take the wheelchair along roads and on one occasion the first applicant was hit by a car.
It appears that no action was taken on their repeated requests.
38. The second applicant complained on several occasions to the Bucharest Department of Public Health about the lack of proper conditions for ensuring her son’s safety in school. The authority replied by describing the facilities available for disabled children in the first applicant’s school and the requests made for further improvements, reiterating his rights and informing her what other authorities to contact for each of her particular requests (Public Health Department’s letters of 27 April, 28 June and 31 July 2012, and 4 February 2013).
39. On 13 June 2013 the second applicant filed a complaint with the Commission for Monitoring and Addressing Cases of Malpractice (Comisia de monitorizare şi competenţă profesională pentru cazurile de malpraxis), a body under the authority of the Ministry of Health. She raised the issue of the quality of medical care and supervision afforded to the first applicant, whose general state of health had deteriorated during his time at school.
On 10 January 2014 the above-mentioned commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that it did not come within its jurisdiction.
(b) With the National Council against Discrimination
40. The second applicant lodged several complaints with the National Council against Discrimination about: the manner in which the authorities had dealt with her son’s situation or the alleged failure to implement measures set out in the rehabilitation plans; access to rehabilitation treatment at thermal resorts; the accessibility of public infrastructure and rehabilitation facilities; and the failure to cover the costs of assistive devices. Some of these complaints were upheld and formal non-binding recommendations were issued to State institutions, whereas others were dismissed either as not constituting discrimination or as inadmissible (the Council’s decisions were given on 29 June 2011, 11 July 2012 and 16 February and 20 March 2013).
(c) With the courts
41. In a judgment of 19 July 2011 the Bucharest County Court partly allowed an action brought by the second applicant against various authorities concerning the manner in which they had dealt with her son’s situation. The court observed that the rehabilitation plan had not been drawn up in accordance with the legal requirements, in particular because the second applicant had not been involved in the process and the plan had not included all the services required by the child and had not taken into account his particular needs. It therefore ordered the Child Protection Agency to supplement the plan according to the court’s instructions. Furthermore, the court noted that it was not objectively impossible for the authorities to hire a personal assistant for the first applicant and therefore ordered the Child Protection Agency to identify a suitable person and to make a proposal to the city council, which in turn was ordered to provide the necessary funds from its budget to cover the salary of the personal assistant.
42. On 7 June 2012 the second applicant brought an action in the Bucharest District Court, seeking an injunction ordering the local authorities and School no. 131 to provide the first applicant with the support, assistance and medical treatment he required to be able to attend school. The second applicant also asked the court to find that the school administration and her son’s class teacher (diriginte) had discriminated against him. In the aftermath of her forcible removal from the school and her son’s de facto inability to return to school, the second applicant sought damages for those actions both from the school and from the local authorities. The proceedings are still pending.
43. Lastly, the second applicant lodged a complaint with the Bucharest County Court, seeking an order compelling School no. 131 to answer a petition in which she had requested clarifications concerning her son’s access to the school premises. This case is still pending with the court.
(d) With the police
44. The applicants filed several complaints with the police about alleged abuses on the part of School no. 131, in relation to the manner in which the local authorities had discharged their obligation to support the first applicant and to adapt their infrastructure to the needs of disabled persons. These complaints were either ignored or dismissed as unfounded by the police.
45. In 2012 the applicants lodged a complaint regarding the alleged harassment and abuse they had suffered at the school. Similarly, they complained to the police about the non-enforcement of the 19 July 2011 court order to hire a personal assistant (see paragraph 41 above). No information has been forthcoming about the outcome of these proceedings.
46. On 31 May 2013 the applicants filed a criminal complaint about the incidents of 3 April 2013. On 3 June 2013 the police informed the second applicant that on 8 April 2013 the school headmaster had also lodged a complaint against her, alleging that she had repeatedly entered the school premises and disturbed the learning process; those allegations had been confirmed by parents who had been interviewed by the police. On the basis of these factors, the police justified the warning given to the second applicant on 3 April 2013.
The second applicant and the school headmaster gave statements to the police. The prosecution is currently still ongoing and on 16 January 2014 the case was referred to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court.
B. Relevant domestic and international law
47. The relevant domestic law is described in Farcaş v. Romania ((dec.), no. 32596/04, §§ 26-36, 14 September 2010).
48. In 2010 Romania ratified the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (through Law no. 221/2010).
49. Integration of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools is an explicit objective of the domestic legislation in this field. Several international reports have expressed concern about the manner in which disabled children seemed to be rather segregated from mainstream education and have urged the respondent State to develop a comprehensive and specific national policy on disability, and to ensure that legislation providing protection for persons with disabilities, as well as programmes and services for children with disabilities, are effectively implemented (see reports by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the European Committee of Social Rights and UNICEF).
COMPLAINTS
A. Complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention
50. The first applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that starting from the fifth grade in school, he was subjected to ongoing low-level harassment and abuse by his classmates in the form of slapping, insults, threats, name-calling, tampering with his wheelchair and other acts. In addition, he complains that he was left to soil himself in class, becoming the subject of ridicule. This treatment was instigated and tolerated by the headmaster and other school staff who actively pressured the family into accepting home schooling. At the same time, the failure by the school to ensure that he received the necessary medical treatment and to follow the medical advice concerning his well-being irreversibly damaged his health, with consequences that will resonate throughout his life.
51. Invoking the same Articles, the first applicant complains that because of the authorities’ failure to provide him with support in school, he constantly fell behind his colleagues. He frequently received suggestions that as a child with disabilities he did not belong in a mainstream school, and that he should stay at home or attend a remedial school. He could not enjoy the school routines like all other children, such as going out during breaks or going on school trips, and instead was confined to the classroom all day long.
52. Lastly, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the first applicant complains that seeing police officers come after his mother, abuse her and physically drag her out of the classroom was traumatising. Furthermore, the fact that he could not return to school for a long period of time damaged his sense of self-worth and humiliated him.
53. The second applicant complains, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, that she was the subject of abuse and ridicule tolerated by the school administration. She further complains about the treatment inflicted on her on 3 April 2013, when she was forcibly removed from the school premises; she suffered physical harm at the hands of the police, who wanted to send her the message that she and her child were not welcome in the school.
54. Under the same Articles, the second applicant complains that she is the family’s sole breadwinner and in addition has to care for her son and bear the costs of extensive treatment in Romania and abroad with almost no financial assistance from the State.
55. Lastly, both applicants complain that the absence of an effective legal framework to protect children with disabilities attending mainstream schools and their assistants from abuse and harassment, as well as the perfunctory manner in which the authorities investigated the complaints of abuse that the applicants lodged, amounts to an additional breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
B. Complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, read separately and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention and with Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention
56. The first applicant complains, under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 read alone or jointly with Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, that the authorities failed to take the requisite measures in compliance with their obligations under national law and the Convention to ensure that he enjoyed the right to quality education without discrimination, including through individual support, reasonable accommodation, improved accessibility of the school and other relevant infrastructure, and the provision of the necessary healthcare at school.
57. Under Article 2 of Protocol No. 12, he complains about the school’s efforts to pressure him into leaving the school, which culminated in his mother’s forcible removal from the school on 3 April 2013, coupled with the school’s failure to set up alternative arrangements for ensuring his well‑being.
58. He further complains that there has been a breach of the prohibition on discrimination because the authorities, by not providing him with the support he needed, failed to afford different treatment to a child whose circumstances were significantly different from the other children (without disabilities) at his school. Aside from their passivity, the authorities’ actions demonstrate that they were not fully committed to the goals of inclusive education and even obstructed the applicants in their attempts to pursue education and pressured them into accepting home schooling. The continued failure to provide basic support led to a deterioration in the first applicant’s health and to his constantly falling behind in terms of academic performance.
C. Complaint under Article 13
59. Lastly, the applicants argue, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they had no effective means at their disposal to complain about the breach of the first applicant’s right to education and about the discrimination he suffered at the hands of the authorities. They submit that an effective remedy could have taken the form of an injunction ordering the relevant authorities to provide the first applicant with support and protect him against further abuse and discrimination. Such a remedy was not available in domestic law and the applicants are not aware of any persons in their situation who have been able to secure respect for their rights by means of a court order. Even the success they obtained in court on 1 July 2013 remained without any practical consequences as the State authorities failed to comply with the court’s decision.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has Ms Stoian exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of her complaint about the manner in which she was removed from the school premises on 3 April 2013 and the ensuing criminal investigations?

2. Has Ștefan-Moshe Stoian been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, given the manner in which he was treated in school and the manner in which the State authorities provided support for his needs, in particular on account of:
(a) the alleged ongoing harassment and abuse by his classmates since 2011;
(b) the alleged absence of adequate medical treatment and educational support at the school;
(c) the alleged lack of accessibility of the school building and infrastructure for wheelchairs;
(d) the manner of his supposed integration into mainstream education;
(e) the manner in which his mother was removed from the school on 3 April 2013, allegedly leaving him alone and without support, and the fact that he was subsequently unable for a long period of time to resume his education in a school environment?

3. Has Ms Stoian been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in her capacity as her disabled child’s carer, in particular concerning:
(a) the alleged abuse and ridicule she was subjected to at the school, tolerated by the school administration;
(b) the alleged lack of adequate financial support from the State authorities for taking care of her son and supporting his medical needs?

4. (a) Has Ms Stoian been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the manner in which she was removed from the school by the police on 3 April 2013?
(b) Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

5. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, with respect to the alleged absence of an effective legal framework to protect children with disabilities integrated in mainstream schools and their assistants from abuse and harassment, as well as the superficial manner in which the authorities investigated the complaints of abuse that the applicants lodged?

6. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in respect of the allegations set out in questions nos. 2-5 above?

7. Has Ștefan-Moshe Stoian been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article 2 to Protocol No. 1, in particular given:
(a) the authorities’ alleged failure to take measures in accordance with the domestic legislation and the Convention to ensure that he enjoyed the right to quality education, including through individual support, reasonable accommodation, improved accessibility of the school and other relevant infrastructure and provision of necessary healthcare in school;
(b) the school’s alleged efforts to pressure him into leaving the school and accepting home schooling and its failure to set up alternative arrangements for ensuring his well‑being;

8. Has Ștefan-Moshe Stoian been discriminated against in violation of Article 14, read together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 in respect of the allegations made in question no. 7 above, in so far as the authorities failed to differentiate him from the non-disabled children at the school?

9. Did the applicants have an effective domestic remedy at their disposal in respect of their complaints under Article 14 of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?