Fundamentos destacados: 110. Además, considera que las condiciones de vida de los demandantes en los últimos diez años, en particular el entorno de hacinamiento e insalubridad grave y su efecto perjudicial para la salud y el bienestar de los demandantes, junto con la duración del período durante el cual los demandantes han tenido que vivir en tales condiciones y la actitud general de las autoridades, debe haberles causado un sufrimiento mental considerable, disminuyendo así su dignidad humana y despertando en ellos sentimientos tales que causan humillación y degradación.
111. Por otra parte, las observaciones relativas a la honradez y al modo de vida de los demandantes formuladas por algunas autoridades que se ocupan de los agravios de los demandantes (véanse las resoluciones de los tribunales civiles y penales y las observaciones del alcalde de Cheţani, apartados 44, 66 y 71 supra) parecen ser, a falta de fundamento alguno por parte de dichas autoridades, puramente discriminatorios. A este respecto, la Corte reitera que la discriminación basada en la raza puede constituir en sí misma un trato degradante en el sentido del artículo 3 de la Convención (véase East African Asians v. the United Kingdom, Informe de la Comisión, 14 de diciembre de 1973, DR 78, p. 5, en la página 62).
Por lo tanto, tales observaciones deben tenerse en cuenta como un factor agravante en el examen de la queja de los solicitantes en virtud del artículo 3 del Convenio.
112. El Tribunal considera que las conclusiones a las que se llegó en la sentencia de 24 de febrero de 2004 del Tribunal de Apelación de Târgu-Mureş, que adquirió firmeza el 25 de febrero de 2005, no afectan a las anteriores conclusiones, puesto que el Tribunal observa que dicha sentencia no reconoció ni concedió reparación por la violación del Convenio (véase, por ejemplo, Amuur c. Francia, sentencia de 25 de junio de 1996, Recueil 1996-III, pág. 846, § 36, y Dalban c. Rumanía [GC], nº 28114/95 , § 44, CEDH 1999-VI).
113. A la luz de lo anterior, la Corte considera que las condiciones de vida de los solicitantes y la discriminación racial de la que han sido objeto públicamente por la forma en que sus agravios fueron tratados por las diversas autoridades, constituyen una injerencia en su dignidad humana que, en las circunstancias especiales de este caso, equivalió a un “trato degradante” en el sentido del artículo 3 de la Convención.
[Traducción de LP]
110. It furthermore considers that the applicants’ living conditions in the last ten years, in particular the severely overcrowded and unsanitary environment and its detrimental effect on the applicants’ health and well-being, combined with the length of the period during which the applicants have had to live in such conditions and the general attitude of the authorities, must have caused them considerable mental suffering, thus diminishing their human dignity and arousing in them such feelings as to cause humiliation and debasement.
111. In addition, the remarks concerning the applicants’ honesty and way of life made by some authorities dealing with the applicants’ grievances (see the decisions of the civil and criminal courts and remarks made by the mayor of Cheţani, paragraphs 44, 66 and 71 above) appear to be, in the absence of any substantiation on behalf of those authorities, purely discriminatory. In this connection the Court reiterates that discrimination based on race can of itself amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see East African Asians v. the United Kingdom, Commission Report, 14 December 1973, DR 78, p.5, at p. 62).
Such remarks should therefore be taken into account as an aggravating factor in the examination of the applicants’ complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
112. The Court considers that the above findings are not affected by the conclusions reached in the judgment of 24 February 2004 of the Târgu-Mureş Court of Appeal, which became final on 25 February 2005, since the Court notes that the said judgment neither acknowledged nor afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).
113. In the light of the above, the Court finds that the applicants’ living conditions and the racial discrimination to which they have been publicly subjected by the way in which their grievances were dealt with by the various authorities, constitute an interference with their human dignity which, in the special circumstances of this case, amounted to “degrading treatment” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
[Idioma original]
COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FORMER SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MOLDOVAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(as regards the applicants Iulius Moldovan, Melenuţa Moldovan, Maria
Moldovan, Otilia Rostaş, Petru (Gruia) Lăcătuş, Maria Floarea Zoltan and
Petru (Dîgăla) Lăcătuş)
(Applications nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01)
JUDGMENT No. 2
STRASBOURG
12 July 2005
In the case of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (as regards Iulius
Moldovan, Melenuţa Moldovan, Maria Moldovan, Otilia Rostaş, Petru
(Gruia) Lăcătuş, Maria Floarea Zoltan and Petru (Dîgăla) Lăcătuş),
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. COSTA, President,
Mr L. LOUCAIDES,
Mr C. BÎRSAN,
Mr K. JUNGWIERT,
Mr V. BUTKEVYCH,
Mrs W. THOMASSEN,
Mrs A. MULARONI, judges,
and Mrs S. DOLLÉ, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 June 2003 and 16 June 2005, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01) against Romania lodged respectively with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 April 1997 and with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 May 2000. The applicants were twenty-five Romanian nationals of Roma origin. Eighteen of the applicants are the subject of a separate judgment (No. 1) involving a friendly settlement. The seven applicants who are the subject of the present judgment on the merits (No. 2) are as follows: the first applicant, Iulius Moldovan, was born in 1959; the second applicant, Melenuţa Moldovan, was born in 1963; the third applicant, Maria Moldovan, was born in 1940; the date of birth of the fourth and fifth applicants, Otilia Rostaş and Petru (Gruia) Lăcătuş (resident at Hădăreni, no. 114), is unknown; the sixth applicant, Maria Floarea Zoltan, was born in 1964; and the seventh applicant, Petru (Dîgăla) Lăcătuş (resident at Hădăreni, no. 148) was born in 1962.
2. The applicants in both applications, with the exception of the first applicant, Mr Iulius Moldovan, were represented before the Court by the European Roma Rights Centre (“the ERRC”), an organisation based in Budapest, some of them having originally been represented by the first applicant. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Rizoiu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
[Continúa…]
Descarga la resolución aquí
