ADAM AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 81114/17 (Judgment : No General prohibition of discrimination : Fourth Section) [2020] ECHR 707 (13 October 2020)

ADAM AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 81114/17 (Judgment : No General prohibition of discrimination : Fourth Section) [2020] ECHR 707 (13 October 2020)

The Court found that the additional exams were an inevitable consequence of the voluntary choice to study in a minority language, and the content and timetable of the curriculum did not place an excessive burden on the applicants. The difference in treatment pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate. The applicants were not placed in a sufficiently different situation from their Romanian peers to require different treatment under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. No violation was found.

Citation
[2020] ECHR 707
Parties
Applicants: Ádám and Others; Respondent: Romanian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
13 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; no violation found
Legal Topics
Prohibition of Discrimination, Right to Education, Minority Rights, Language Rights, Margin of Appreciation, Positive Obligations, Comparative Treatment
Human Rights Law Education Law Anti Discrimination Law Prohibition of Discrimination Right to Education Minority Rights Language Rights Margin of Appreciation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ádám and Others

Applicants

Romanian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the organisation of the baccalaureate exams for minority pupils constituted discrimination under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the additional exams and timetable imposed a disproportionate burden on minority students
  3. 3 Whether the difference in treatment was objectively and reasonably justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the additional exams were an inevitable consequence of the voluntary choice to study in a minority language, and the content and timetable of the curriculum did not place an excessive burden on the applicants. The difference in treatment pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate. The applicants were not placed in a sufficiently different situation from their Romanian peers to require different treatment under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. No violation was found.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no violation found