Case of Moldovan and Others v Romania; village of Hadareni
The European Court of Human Rights on 13 July 2005 ruled that Romania violated multiple provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for failing to provide justice in connection with a 1993 pogrom and its aftermath. The case involves the killing by a mob of three Romani men and the subsequent destruction of fourteen Romani houses in the village of Hadareni in Mures County, northwestern Romania, as well as the degrading circumstances in which the victims were forced to live after the event.
Facts: In September 1993, a conflict arose between some Roma and non-Roma men in the Romanian village of Hădăreni (Târgu-Mureş county) which resulted in the death of a non-Roma man. That evening, the non-Roma villagers gathered where the Roma men were hiding and demanded that they come out. Among the crowd were members of the local police force. The Roma men refused to appear and the mob set fire to the house. Two of the Roma men were beaten to death, the other perished in the fire. Later that evening and continuing into the next day, the villagers proceeded to burn Roma thirteen homes and property in the village, such as stables, cars, and goods. The police did nothing to halt the attacks. 25 applicants alleged the destruction of their home and possessions. As a result, the applicants were obliged to live in crowded and unsuitable conditions and frequently change addresses, moving in with friends of family in extremely overcrowded conditions.
Article 3 (prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment): violation
The Court held that the applicants' living conditions over the last ten years, its detrimental effect on their health and well-being, and the general attitude of the authorities, must have caused them considerable suffering, arousing in them feelings of humiliation and debasement. In addition, the remarks concerning the applicants' honesty and way of life made by some authorities appear to be purely discriminatory. The Court took such remarks as an aggravating factor in the examination of the applicants' complaint under Article 3. As a result, the Court concluded that the applicants have been subjected to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
Article 6 Section 1 (access to court and right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time): violation
The applicants were able to lodge a successful civil action against the civilians who had been found guilty by the criminal court, claiming compensation for the destruction of their homes. As a result, the Court considered that the applicants could not claim an additional right to a separate civil action against the police officers allegedly involved in the same incident. However, the proceedings had lasted more than 11 years and the Court found that such length did not satisfy the reasonable-time requirement and therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 6 Section 1.
Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life): violation
Considering whether the national authorities took adequate steps to put a stop to breaches of the applicants' rights, the Court noted, among other things, that (1) despite the involvement of state agents in the burning of the applicants' houses, the Public Prosecutors' Office failed to institute criminal proceedings against them; (2) it was only ten years after the events that compensation was awarded fro the destroyed houses, although not for the loss of belongings; (3) in the judgment in the criminal case against the accused villagers, discriminatory remarks about the applicants' Roma origin were made. In the Court's view, these elements taken together indicated a general attitude on the part of the Romanian authorities which perpetuated the applicants' feeling of insecurity after June 1994 and affected their rights to respect for their private and family life and their homes. The Court concluded that that attitude, and the repeated failure of the authorities to put a stop to breaches of the applicants' rights, amounted to a serious violation of Article 8 of a continuing nature.
Article 14 (non-discrimination): violation
The Court noted that the attacks were directed against the applicants because of their Roma origin and the applicants' Roma ethnicity appeared to have been decisive for the length and the result of the domestic proceedings. Among other things, the Court took note of the repeated discriminatory remarks made by the authorities throughout the case. The Court concluded accordingly that there has been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8.
- Full Hadareni judegement: View it (MSWord doc format)!
- Friendly settlement: View it (MSWord doc format)!
- Merits of the case: View it (MSWord doc format)!
- First communication to the Committee of Ministers on judgment implementation
- Second communication to the Committee of Ministers on judgment implementation
- Third communication to the Committee of Ministers on judgment implementation
- Fourth communication to the Committee of Ministers on judgment implementation