Minority issues: How The European Court 
of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and 
Travellers’ Claims 
This paper retraces the origins and the development of international minority protection 
by the League of Nations and the United Nations. It describes local and regional 
mechanisms of protection, such as that established by the European Human Rights 
Convention. It also shows how the European Court of Human Rights has protected 
Roma and Travellers in different areas, such as the prohibition of torture, the treatment 
of asylum seekers and beggars, the protection of property, the right to education and the 
exercise of political rights. Minority-specific treaties and mechanisms may improve the 
situation of minority groups, while human rights mechanisms will protect the rights of 
their individual members.  
Keywords: freedom of association, right to education, European Convention on 
Human Rights, Helsinki Conference, Final Act, League of Nations, right to life, pro-
tection of minorities, political rights.
Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče 
za človekove pravice obravnavalo nekatere zahteve 
Romov in Popotnikov
Članek obravnava nastanek in razvoj mednarodne zaščite manjšin v povezavi z Društvom 
narodov in Združenimi narodi. Opisuje lokalne in regionalne mehanizme zaščite, kakršen 
je npr. mehanizem v okviru Evropske konvencije za človekove pravice. Dodaja tudi, da je 
Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice Rome in Popotnike zaščitilo v številnih pogledih, tako 
glede prepovedi mučenja, obravnave prosilcev za azil in beračev, kot glede zaščite lastnine, 
pravice do izobraževanja in uresničevanja političnih pravic. Specifične manjšinske pogodbe 
in mehanizmi bodo morda izboljšali položaj manjšinskih skupnosti, mehanizmi človekovih 
pravic pa bodo zaščitili pravice njihovih individualnih pripadnikov.
Ključne besede: pravica do združevanja, pravica do izobraževanja, Evropska konvencija 
za človekove pravice, Helsinška konferenca, Društvo narodov, pravica do življenja, zaščita 
manjšin, politične pravice.
Correspondence address: Lucius Caflisch, l. route de la Dôle, C.P. 23, CH-1276 Gingins, Switzerland, 
e-mail: caflisch.lda@bluewin.ch.
Lucius Caflisch 
TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA
79 / 2017, p. 71–96
ISSN 0354-0286 Print/ISSN 1854-5181 Online          © Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja (Ljubljana), http://www.inv.si
RIG_79.indd   71 14.12.2017   9:15:09
1. introduction
The present contribution1 is divided into three parts. The first deals with the 
way in which minority issues have been approached: by concluding minority 
treaties, on the one hand, and by eliminating discrimination between the 
individuals belonging to the majority of the population and those forming part 
of a minority (Chapter two). The next part shows, by using a series of examples, 
how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Strasbourg Court) has 
dealt with applications by Roma and Travellers (Chapter three). In the last part 
some conclusions are drawn (Chapter four).
2. The Evolution of international Minority Protection
2.1 Definitional Problems
What is a minority? This is a difficult question. The answer given by Francesco 
Capotorti (1977, 96, 1991, 98)2 in the framework of Article 27 of the Second 
UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is helpful:
A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant 
position, whose members – being nationals of the State – possess ethnic, religious or 
linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, 
if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their cultures, 
traditions, religion or language (Council of Europe 2007, 33). 
This definition, though lengthy, may appear incomplete. Are there minorities 
other than ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic ones? Should their members 
enjoy the same kind and degree of protection as the majority of the population? 
What precisely is meant by national minorities? Do groups such as the Roma and 
the Travellers belong to a single or several of these categories, or do they exhibit 
special features such as a non-sedentary character? A further issue is whether, 
to achieve minority status, members of a group must be nationals of the State 
concerned and whether a group of persons can aspire to minority status if their 
presence in that State is of recent origin (Capotorti 1997, 411, Henrard 2013, 
10). A further – and unanswered – question is that of the number of individuals 
needed to qualify a group as a minority. Finally, what if a State hosts several 
minorities: can and should they all claim the same status? And what if the sum of 
a State‘s minorities forms a majority of that State‘s population?
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   72 14.12.2017   9:15:09
73
2.2 Minority Status and Regimes
2.2.1 League of nations
While treaty rules endeavoured, from the 17th century onward, to protect reli-
gious minorities, conventional protection systems burgeoned in the wake of 
the First World War and on account of the territorial changes that resulted 
from it. This was the case in relation to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, 
Romania and Greece (Capotorti 1997, 411), all of which concluded minority 
treaties with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. In their peace treaties, 
Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary and Turkey assumed similar obligations, while the 
Polish minority in the City of Danzig was protected by a treaty between Poland 
and that City,3 the Swedish-speaking population of the Aland Island by an 
agreement between Sweden and Finland;4 and the status of the Memel Territory 
was governed by a 1924 convention between the Allied and Associated Powers 
and Lithuania.5 Several declarations on minority protection were made by States 
when joining the League of Nations and acknowledged by the Council of the 
League (Capotorti 1997, 412).
These instruments made the following points: (i) all inhabitants of the State 
were entitled to see their life and liberty protected, without discrimination, and 
to espouse, in private or in public, any creed, religion or belief; (ii) all of the 
State‘s nationals were to be equal before the law and to enjoy equal access to 
public employment, professions and industries; (iii) there was to be freedom to 
use any language in private relations, commerce, religious matters, the press or 
public relations or meetings. Moreover, (iv) the right to use minority languages 
in court was guaranteed, as it was in religious, charitable, social and educational 
minority institutions; and (v) so was the right to receive basic instruction in such 
a language (Capotorti 1997, 412). This summary description suggests that, to 
preserve minorities, they and their members were granted some privileges under 
international law. Accordingly they enjoyed rights the majority did not have.
The regimes thus established were guaranteed on the domestic and inter-
national levels: on the former by making sure that they could not be cancelled by 
ordinary laws, on the latter by making changes dependent on majority decisions 
taken by the League of Nations Council. Violations could be brought to the 
Council‘s attention by a member State for appropriate action to be taken. If a 
dispute was to arise between a member State and another member State bound 
by a minority regime, it could be taken by either State to the Permanent Court 
of International Justice.
Individuals or associations could also petition the League Council on be-
half of minority groups. Petitions were to be examined by committees of three 
Council members. By 1923, the conditions for the admissibility of such petitions 
were determined. If a petition was considered admissible, this could trigger 
negotiations between the competent committee and the State concerned or 
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   73 14.12.2017   9:15:09
74
submission of the matter to the Council, which could make recommendations 
of settlement. Another important actor in this field was the League‘s Minority 
Section whose role it was to monitor the respect of rules on minorities by 
collecting information and despatching missions to minority areas (Capotorti 
1997, 412–413).
2.2.2 United nations
At the end of the Second World War, many conventional minority regimes 
disappeared6 and were replaced by the then modern idea of emphasising the 
protection of the human rights of individuals set forth in Article 1.3 of the 
UN Charter and in Article  2.1 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights (UDHR), more specifically the idea that equality of treatment should 
be extended to all, including the members of ethnic, religious and linguistic 
minorities. This idea was echoed, in 1966, by the previously cited Article 27 of 
the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the main features of which are: 
(i) that, although it has cultural and historical connotations, the term ethnic 
ought to be considered as covering national and racial origins; (ii) that the rights 
in question belong and may be claimed, not by the groups as such, but by the 
individuals composing them; and (iii) that the States concerned will not get 
away with simply not curtailing minorities‘ freedoms in cultural, linguistic and 
religious matters, but are duty-bound to take concrete measures to promote 
these freedoms by actively intervening at least in situations where the groups‘ 
identity cannot survive without them. There are no rules, however, on the grant 
of political or administrative autonomy; hence States are free to deal with these 
matters as they wish but within the bounds of the principle of self-determination 
(Capotorti 1997, 414–416).7
Article 27 of the ICCPR lacks precision, however, as the rights of individual 
members of minorities are not sufficiently specified. This matter could or should 
be addressed by a declaration to be made by the UN General Assembly and 
indicating the measures needed to ensure full respect of the rule. To fill the 
gap, there are now General Assembly Resolution 47/135 of 3 February 1993 
and the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, 
Religious and Linguistic Minorities annexed to it. The latter elaborates on some 
of the rights in question but fails to describe the conditions in which individuals 
can be considered as belonging to this or that minority. There is also the UN 
Human Rights Committee‘s General Comment No. 23 on Article 27 of the 
ICCPR. That text focusses, however, on the conditions to be met by minority 
members who complain that their human rights have been infringed: they need 
not be nationals of their State of residence, nor do they have to be members of 
traditional minority groups.
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   74 14.12.2017   9:15:10
75
2.2.3 Regional and Local Regimes
The World‘s main regional mechanisms8 know of no provisions similar to 
Article 27 of the ICCPR, although an attempt was made, in a European context, to 
devise such rules (Capotorti 1997, 417). Other texts and instruments, elaborated 
by the Council of Europe, must be mentioned, however: the European Charter 
for Regional or Minority Languages of 5 November 1992 and the Framework 
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of 1 February 1995. The 
latter establishes a catalogue of principles and rights on national minorities and 
their members, as well as an implementation mechanism providing for States‘ 
reports to be studied by a body of experts – the Advisory Committee – and, 
subsequently, by the Committee of Ministers. According to its Article 23, that 
Convention is to be applied in conformity with the provisions of the European 
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 
A further text deserving mention is Additional Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR, 
which flatly prohibits discrimination in general – and not only discrimination 
practiced in respect of the rights protected by that Convention. This relatively 
recent Protocol allows the Strasbourg Court to consider the substance of com-
plaints of discrimination because of membership in a minority group.
There is, finally, the Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE (Conference for Security 
and Cooperation in Europe) of 1 August 1975.9 Though it was mainly devoted 
to political and security issues, human rights and humanitarian problems were 
on the Conference‘s agenda as well. The CSCE consisted, in 1975, of 35 parti-
cipating States, including the United States and Canada.10 This number grew to 
56 in 2008, comprising the five Central Asian States. Its attributions were divided 
into four areas or baskets; the third basket included democratic governance, 
election monitoring, democratic policing, the rule of law, human rights and 
humanitarian issues. The last-mentioned issues were to be approached from 
three angles: politico-security questions; substantive commitments on human 
and minority rights; and monitoring of the human dimension issues.
Regarding the first angle, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act was completed by the 
Decalogue – ten principles to ensure the respect of everyone‘s human rights, 
including those of persons belonging to minorities. The inclusion of human 
rights among these principles was a major achievement (Drzewicki 2009, 112), 
as most references to human rights had hitherto been considered interventions 
into domestic affairs. The second item of the third basket consisted of a series of 
human dimension commitments, including provisions on national minorities 
and regional cultures. There were further meetings of the Conference between 
1983 and 1991, the Madrid Follow-up Meeting (1983) and the Copenhagen 
Conference (1990), followed by the Geneva Meeting of Experts (1991), 
which produced more than 70 operative paragraphs forming, according to K. 
Drzewicki, the most complete set of existing rules on national minorities – 
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   75 14.12.2017   9:15:10
76
although they consisted of political undertakings rather than legal obligations 
(Drzewicki 2009, 114–115).
Many meetings followed to confirm these commitments or elements of 
implementation and, sometimes, to elaborate new or more detailed guidelines 
for action, witness the rules regarding Roma and Sinti.11 There also emerged 
the idea of setting up a new body, the Office of the High Commissioner on 
National Minorities (HCNM). This idea became a reality in 1992. The new 
body produced a series of standards, recommendations and guidelines on the 
treatment of national minorities. It thus contributed to filling the post-war 
“normative deficit” (Drzewicki 2009, 115) regarding the rights of members 
of national minorities and also spurred developments in other international 
fora, such as the conclusion of the 1995 Framework Convention on National 
Minorities, which turns the OSCE political commitments in this area into legal 
ones (Drzewicki 2009, 116).
The crowning achievements, however, seem to be the monitoring mecha-
nisms for, on the one hand, verifying compliance with human dimension 
commitments, and, on the other hand, for specifically monitoring national mi-
nority issues, such as the Office of the HCNM.
Regarding compliance with the human dimension provisions, the Hu-man 
Dimension Mechanism set up in 1989 and perfected in 1991 must be men-
tioned. As far as the Office of the HCNM is concerned, it was established in 
1992 (Drzewicki 2009, 119–121). The High Commissioner is required to 
provide “early warning” and to take “early action” if, in his/her view, tensions 
could “develop into a conflict within the OSCE area, affecting peace, stability 
or relations between participating States, requiring the attention of and action 
by the Ministerial Council or the Permanent Council” (Drzewicki 2009, 121). 
Thus, the HCNM‘s mission is to identify and, if possible, defuse tensions and to 
alert the OSCE wherever these tensions cannot be de-escalated with the means 
at the HCNM‘s disposal. The High Commissioner is independent from both 
the States involved and the OSCE‘s Permanent Council, and uses tools of “quiet 
diplomacy”: negotiations, confidentiality, recommendations and reports to the 
Chairman-in-Office (Drzewicki 2009, 122). He/she may be requested, however, 
to provide information on his/her activities at implementation meetings on 
Human Dimension issues. The High Commissioner is entitled to deal with 
individual violations of OSCE commitments; his/her actions will often take 
the form of recommendations addressed to a participating State to amend its 
minority policy and legislation.
This is a sign of gradual change, in the HCNM‘s mandate, from the charge 
of a firefighter to something more of a medium-term device. Yet another sign 
is the “permeation effect” (Drzewicki 2009, 128), i.e. increased consultation of 
the practice of the Advisory Committee of the 1995 Framework Convention, 
and the reverse as well. This enhances the synergy between the HCNM and the 
Committee, which generates increased preventive effects.
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   76 14.12.2017   9:15:10
77
There are, finally, a number of bilateral treaties containing provisions relevant 
for minority protection. Labelled agreements on cooperation, friendship and 
good neighbourliness, they have been concluded by States such as Germany, 
Romania and Poland, in particular. The Treaty on Good Neighbourly Relations 
and Friendly Cooperation between Germany and Poland of 17 June 1991 may 
be cited as an example. These agreements, though useful for the international 
protection of minorities, present potential drawbacks and dangers in that their 
provisions on minority rights tend to concern sensitive issues and, hence, may 
have a de-stabilising effect on the relations between the States Parties. For that 
reason, the multilateral approach should remain dominant (Henrard 2013, 63–
66).
2.3 Conclusion
The preceding considerations have identified two methods to improve the fate 
of minorities and their members. The first consists in elaborating conventional 
regimes of protection, the second in securing for minority individuals the full 
scale of human rights granted to the rest of the population, without any dis-
crimination.12
At first glance, the two methods seem incompatible. This is not, however, 
the case. The first method mainly aims at protecting the minority group as 
such by establishing a regime of positive discrimination in certain areas. The 
other seeks to secure, for the individual members of the group, the full range of 
human rights and freedoms extended to others; there shall be no discrimination 
between individuals of the majority and of the minority. These two approaches 
are compatible, as they can be used in a complementary way: by eliminating 
discrimination between members of a given human community, on the one 
hand, and by extending special protection to minority groups, on the other.13 
Chapter three of this contribution will now explore the first approach, using as 
an illustration the protection of Roma and Travellers‘ human rights in Europe.
3. Roma and Travellers: An Anthology of Cases
3.1 Human Rights Standards: The Prohibition of  
Discrimination
As has just been pointed out, a basic way for improving the situation of minorities 
and their members is to make sure that their human rights are protected, on 
the national and international levels, in the same way and to the same extent 
as those of the majority of the population. The main strategy, in this context, is 
to seek to eliminate any difference of treatment between the two categories of 
individuals, except where such a difference can be justified objectively, i.e. by the 
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   77 14.12.2017   9:15:10
78
presence of certain circumstances, for example the difference, made in public, 
private and criminal law, between children and adults: children may be treated 
unlike adults and vice-versa. It is thus essential that the authorities, legislators 
and courts of law, in particular, vest minority members with the entire range of 
recognised human rights and freedoms, avoiding any unjustified distinction, and 
give them full access to the remedies available. And, as the attainment of this 
postulate cannot be totally guaranteed in any country, there should be control 
mechanisms available on the universal and/or regional levels.
This postulate is met on the European continent. On the normative level, 
Articles 2 to 18 of the ECHR are relevant, in particular Article 14 which prohibits 
discrimination on grounds of sex, race, colour, language, religion, opinion, 
national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth 
or other status, when one of the rights secured by the Convention has been 
allegedly breached.14 There is now Article 12 of Additional Protocol No. 12 of 
4  November 2000 as well,15 which prohibits discrimination on any grounds 
and not only in situations where rights guaranteed by the Convention or its 
Protocols are at stake.
On the procedural level, Article 34 of the ECHR offers the tool of individual 
applications, which allows any individual alleging unlawful treatment by the 
authorities of a State Party to submit his/her grievance to the ECtHR, whose 
judgments are final and binding.16
The system outlined above basically improves the situation of individual 
members of minority groups wherever their equality with the majority 
population is an issue. This seems to be the case for the members of gypsy 
communities and, in particular, for Roma and Travellers, as will become evident 
when perusing the case-law of the Strasbourg Court.
3.2 Case-law Relating to Roma and Travellers17
3.2.1 Right to Life and Prohibition of Torture and inhuman 
or Degrading Treatment
This is one of the main themes in the Court‘s case-law on Roma and Travellers, 
and Sečić v. Croatia is one of the important cases in that area. The applicant, 
who was of Roma origin, had been beaten up by two unknown individuals. 
Soon afterwards, the police arrived on the scene but could not find the attackers. 
Nothing further was done by the Croatian authorities to identify, arrest and 
punish the aggressors – as still seems to be the sad reality in many situations 
involving Roma or Travellers. The ECtHR found a violation of the procedural 
aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (Prohibition of torture), i.e. in the fact that 
the national authorities had failed to identify, arrest and punish the perpetrators, 
and a breach of the prohibition of discrimination of Article 14 considered in 
conjunction with Article 3. The police did suspect that the aggressors belonged 
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   78 14.12.2017   9:15:10
79
to a group of skinheads moved by an extremist and racist ideology; they were thus 
aware that the aggression had a racist background and should not have allowed 
the investigation to drag on for more than seven years without any serious steps 
taken to identify and prosecute the individuals concerned.
Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria falls into the same category. The applicants, 
mother and son, had complained about the racially-motivated killing of their 
son, respectively brother, by a gang of teenagers and the failure of the Bulgarian 
authorities to investigate the crime and to punish its authors, thereby violating 
their duty to react to racially-motivated crimes. In so doing, the Court noted 
the widespread prejudice and violence against Roma during the period in 
question and stressed the necessity to combat racial violence and protect Roma 
from attacks. It found that the Bulgarian authorities had neglected to draw the 
necessary distinction between the present case and other, not racially motivated 
offences. This led it to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 2 and a 
breach of that provision read in conjunction with Article 14.
Another case to be mentioned under this sub-heading is that of Škorjanec 
v. Croatia. The applicant complained that two men had heaped racial abuse on 
her partner because of his Roma origin. The men then had attacked him and her. 
The assailants were later prosecuted and convicted on charges including a hate 
crime against her partner but not against herself, as she was not of Roma origin. 
The applicant also complained of the lack of an effective procedural response to 
a racially motivated act of violence directed against her.
The ECtHR found that there had been a breach of Article 3 of the 
Convention in its procedural aspect, combined with Article 14, on account of 
the Croatian authorities‘ refusal to investigate the applicant‘s criminal complaint. 
In so doing – and this is the special feature of the case –, it pointed out that a 
person may be the victim of a hate crime not only because she herself exhibits a 
certain characteristic, but also when she is being attacked because of her actual or 
presumed association with a person who has that characteristic. This extension 
of the Convention‘s area of protection appears justified.
The recent case of Randelović and Others v. Montenegro related to a 
complaint by one of the applicants that the Montenegrin authorities had failed 
to undertake a prompt and effective inquiry into the disappearance of the 
applicant’s family members, a group of Roma who had, on the Montenegrin 
coasts, boarded a boat headed for Italy. The boat sank in August 1999. According 
to the Court, the authorities of Montenegro had breached Article 2 (Right to 
life) of the Convention in its procedural aspect: the criminal proceedings had 
lasted for more than 17 years after the impugned event and ten years after the 
issuance of a new indictment in 2006. The Court stressed that the passage of 
time inevitably affected the amount and quality of the evidence available and 
that the appearance of a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities cast doubt 
on the latters’ good faith. Accordingly the delays in question were incompatible 
with the State’s obligations under the procedural angle of Article 2.
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   79 14.12.2017   9:15:10
80
Other, similar cases – reluctance on the part of the national authorities to 
investigate and prosecute the authors of crimes of violence or abuse against 
members of minorities – may be mentioned.18 Their characteristics were: (i) that 
the authors of the crimes were individuals; (ii) that their crimes were racially 
motivated; and (iii) that the domestic authorities, closing their eyes, did little 
to sanction them. This seems to suggest that while crimes must in general be 
punished, this is not so for hate crimes. In other words, there was a sort of passive 
complicity between the domestic authorities and the authors of the crimes.
3.2.2 Attacks on Roma Dwellings
The case of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (No. 2) involved three Roma men 
who had been aggressed by a crowd of non-Roma villagers, with the apparent 
collusion of the local police; one of them was burnt alive while the two others 
were beaten to death. Homes were destroyed, some of them completely, and the 
applicants were then forced to move to crowded and unsuitable quarters (cellars, 
stables, hen-houses).
The main obstacle to the examination of these complaints by the Strasbourg 
Court was the fact that the events in question had occurred before Romania had 
ratified the ECHR and, thereby, accepted the Court‘s jurisdiction. The Court, 
however, found that there were complaints about applicants‘ subsequent living 
conditions. It also noted that the ethnic origin of the victims had been a decisive 
factor for the excessive length of the domestic proceedings. This enabled the 
ECtHR to find violations of Articles 3 (Prohibition of torture), 8 (Respect 
for private and family life and home), 6.1 (Fair trial) and 14 (Prohibition of 
discrimination) read together with Articles 6.1 and 8.19
Gergely v. Romania and Kalanyos and Others v. Romania seem to be rou-
tine instances of the burning of Roma houses by villagers and of the failure of 
domestic authorities to prevent the attacks and to conduct a proper investigation, 
thus depriving the applicants of the possibility of bringing civil actions to 
establish responsibility and collect damages. Their common characteristic was 
that the Romanian Government recognised the infringement of Articles 3, 6, 
8, 13 (Right to an effective remedy) and 14, undertook to compensate each 
applicant and agreed to take a series of general measures better to integrate the 
Roma into the population-at-large.
The case of Bagdonavicius and Others v. Russia arose out of the demolition 
of Roma houses and the eviction of their occupants. The latter argued, before the 
ECtHR, that these measures were in breach of Article 8 of the Convention and 
of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 (Protection of property); they further 
complained that the interviews some of them had with the police prevented 
them from exercising their right of individual application (Article 34 of the 
ECHR).
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   80 14.12.2017   9:15:10
81
The Court found that there had indeed been a breach of Article 8 in that the 
applicants did not, in the proceedings related to the demolition of their houses, 
benefit from an examination of the proportionality of the interference; nor did 
the authorities offer them genuine consultations on re-housing. It rejected the 
grievance based on Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1, however, as it found 
that the applicants‘ property interests were not sufficiently weighty to constitute 
a substantive interest within the meaning of that term. It also rejected the 
grievance relating to Article 34 of the Convention. These conclusions are neither 
particularly surprising nor preoccupying. What appears strange is that it took the 
Court a full ten years to dispose of the case.
3.2.3 Police Brutality and Death in Police Custody
Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, decided by the Court‘s Grand Chamber, is 
a leading case in the field examined by the present study.20 It arose out of the 
killing by military police, without there being any pressing need, of two of the 
applicants‘ relatives. The two victims were of Roma origin. They had deserted 
from the Army and were killed on their flight by a policeman. The applicants 
claimed that prejudice against Roma people was at the root of events. The Grand 
Chamber ruled that there had indeed been a violation of the right to life (Article 
2) both because of the deaths caused by a policeman as a result of over-permissive 
legislation and because of the lack of an effective investigation. But the Chamber 
added, prudently, that there was insufficient evidence for a racially motivated 
killing; it did, however, conclude that there had been a violation under Article 
14 (Prohibition of discrimination) combined with a breach of Article 2 in its 
procedural aspect (lack of a proper investigation).
Stoica v. Romania relates to yet another occurrence of police brutality. In 
a clash between the police and a group of Roma at the entrance to a bar, the 
applicant, a fourteen-year old Roma boy of Romanian nationality, was beat up 
by a policeman despite a warning that he had recently undergone head surgery. 
The applicant complained that he had been mistreated by the police and that the 
decision not to prosecute the policeman was due to racial prejudice.
The Court concluded that there had been both a substantive and a procedu-
ral violation of Article 3 (Prohibition of torture) of the ECHR. It also held that 
there had been a breach of Article 14 of the Convention, read together with 
Article 3, as neither the prosecutor in charge nor the Romanian Government 
could show that the incident or its consequences were not racially motivated, 
the evidence pointing in the opposite direction. That may well be; but the case 
is special in that the Court seems to have asked the Government to prove the 
absence of racial bias (Paragraph 124). This is curious since it would seem that, 
as a matter of principle, it was up to the applicantto prove such bias.
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   81 14.12.2017   9:15:11
82
The same issue arose in Anguelova v. Bulgaria. The applicant alleged that her 
son, aged seventeen, had been arrested and placed in custody for attempted theft. 
She complained that he died after ill-treatment by the police, arguing that the 
authorities had failed to provide adequate medical treatment, that no effective 
investigation had been undertaken, that her son’s detention was unlawful, that 
there had been no effective remedy, and that there had been discrimination on 
account of her son’s Roma origin.
According to the ECtHR, Article 2 had been breached as a result of the death 
of the applicant’s son, of the authorities’ failure to provide adequate medical 
care and of their duty to carry out an effective investigation. The Court also 
found violations of Articles 5 (Right to liberty and security) and 13 (Right to 
an effective remedy). It did not, however, see any breach of Article 14: while the 
arguments regarding bias on the part of the authorities were serious, the Court 
felt unable to conclude that there was proof of racial bias beyond reasonable 
doubt (Judgment, Paragraph 168). This seems to be the correct approach to 
the issue of the burden of proof in matters of discrimination, despite what the 
ECtHR asserted later on in the Stoica case. But it is clear that the correct way of 
establishing bias is also the harder one, for the applicant may find it difficult to 
collect the necessary evidence.
Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria concerned a young man of Roma origin 
who was suspected of having participated in numerous thefts and burglaries and 
had been taken into custody. While being interviewed, he fell from a third-floor 
window of the police station. He was taken to hospital and died the next day. The 
applicants, his de facto wife and his mother, contended that the young man had 
died because of ill-treatment while in custody – did he jump out of the window 
or was he pushed? – and that there had been no effective investigation into the 
circumstances of his death. They also argued that the events in question were the 
result of a discriminatory attitude towards Roma.
The Strasbourg Court saw a violation of Article 2 in the fact that the 
Government had not fully accounted for the young man’s injuries and death, 
and also in the absence of an effective investigation. It further held that there 
had been breaches of Articles 3 and 5, and of Article 13. There had been no 
discrimination, according to the Court, as there were no concrete indications 
thereof in the case-file. The Court may well have been right on this point but one 
does wonder how and why the individual fell from the third-floor window of the 
police station.
Adam v. Slovakia concerned a complaint by a young Roma who had been 
slapped in the face when being interrogated by the police about a mugging. A 
further complaint was that the investigation into that incident was insufficient. 
For the Court, there was no violation of Article 3. It was plausible, as argued by 
the respondent State, that the applicant’s injury – a swollen cheek – could have 
resulted from the applicant’s resistance to arrest. The ECtHR did, however, find 
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   82 14.12.2017   9:15:11
83
a breach of the procedural limb of that Article: the authorities seemed to have 
shifted the burden of proof in the matter to the applicant and to have neglected 
various measures (questioning of witnesses, confrontation of the applicant with 
his interrogators, interrogation of the doctor who had treated him). Thus, the 
respondent State’s authorities had not done what could have been reasonably 
expected from them, bearing in mind the sensitive situation of the Roma in 
Slovakia.
3.2.4 Death Resulting from inadequate Care
A recent case dealt with by the Court’s Grand Chamber is that of Center of Legal 
Resources on Behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania. Câmpeanu, a young 
HIV-infected man of Roma origin suffering from a severe mental handicap, had 
been placed in a psychiatric hospital which, however, did not take proper care 
of him and was not equipped to do so. The patient died and his case was taken 
to the Strasbourg Court by a non-governmental organisation. To be admissible, 
applications must normally be made by the victims of alleged violations or their 
families rather than by entities acting on their behalf, except where it is the entity 
itself which is the victim of the violations complained of.21 In the exceptional 
circumstances of the present case, the application was, however, found admis-
sible by the Court because Câmpeanu was incapable of acting for himself 
(Judgment, Paragraph 108), because the respondent State had not questioned 
the Centre’s activity on Câmpeanu’s behalf on the domestic level (Paragraphs 
109 to 110) and because Câmpeanu had no next of kin who could have acted 
(Paragraph 111).
Having thus recognised the admissibility of the application, the Grand 
Chamber found breaches of Article 2 (Right to life) in both its substantive and 
procedural (no effective investigation) aspects, and of Article 13 (Right to an 
effective remedy) because there were no opportunities for complaining under 
Romanian law. It did not, however, see any violation of Article 14 (Prohibition 
of discrimination): the young man’s demise was death by neglect rather than by 
hate-inspired inaction.
3.2.5 Forced Sterilisation
The forced sterilisation cases, shrouded in lies and deceit, form a particularly 
dark chapter among the cases examined in this contribution.
V.C. v. Slovakia is one of them. After the birth of her second child, the 
applicant, a Slovak woman of Roma origin, was sterilised without her full and 
informed consent, and after having been told that if she were to have a third 
child, she or the child would die. Upon her sterilisation, she was ostracised by 
the Roma community, and her induced infertility allegedly was a reason for the 
separation from her husband. The Court found the sterilisation to be in violation 
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   83 14.12.2017   9:15:11
84
of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). One will note that in 
this case, the behaviour of the Roma community was a factor contributing to 
the applicant‘s sufferings. Moreover, there always is, in cases such as the present 
one, a pressing suspicion that the sterilisations carried out are racially motivated.
N.B. v. Slovakia is another one of these unfortunate cases. The applicant, 
a Roma woman, contended that she had been sterilised in a public hospital 
without her full and informed consent. The Court concluded that her sterilisation 
violated both Articles 3 (Prohibition of torture) and 8, but also found that the 
investigation into the sterilisation had not been inadequate.
3.2.6 Treatment of Asylum Seekers and Expulsion
The case of V. M. v. Belgium related to the admission to Belgium of a Serb family 
of Roma origin. Its object was a Belgian expulsion order by which the family was 
deprived of all means of subsistence and forced to return to where it had come 
from. Subsequently the family‘s handicapped daughter passed away.
The ECtHR found a breach of Article 3 (Prohibition of torture), mainly due 
to the fact that the Belgian authorities had neglected to consider the vulnerability 
of the applicants and their two small children, who were deprived of the most 
basic means of existence. It also concluded that there was a violation of Article 
13 (Right to an effective remedy), but was unable to find a breach of Article 2 
(Right to life) because it could not be established that the handicapped child 
died as a consequence of the family‘s situation in Belgium.
Čonka v. Belgium was about the collective expulsion of a Slovak Roma 
family. The applicants contended that they had fled their country on account of 
racist aggressions. They were arrested at a meeting with the Belgian authorities 
which had incited them to come and fill out a form explaining their request for 
asylum.
The Court held that Belgium had violated Articles 5 (Right to liberty and 
security) and 13 of the Convention, but the main point made by it was that there 
had been a breach of Article 4 of Additional Protocol No. 4 of 16 September 
1963, which prohibits the collective expulsion of aliens.
3.2.7 Way of Life, Forced Evictions, Alternative Accommo-
dation
This matter is one in which the Strasbourg Court had, for some time, been hesi-
tant to find breaches of the ECHR. In Buckley v. United Kingdom, the applicant 
had complained about being prevented from living, with her family, in a caravan 
on her own land and also from leading a travellers‘ life. The Court detected no 
violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) in conjunction 
with Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination); the British authorities had given 
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   84 14.12.2017   9:15:11
85
sufficient reasons for justifying their decisions, namely, that the latter had been 
taken as measures to promote highway safety, to preserve the environment, and 
to protect public health.
Chapman and Others v. United Kingdom related to another complaint 
about steps taken to enforce measures against the applicants‘ occupation of their 
own land by caravans. For similar reasons, the Court refused to find violations of 
Article 8 and of that provision in combination with Article 14.
The case of Connors v. United Kingdom concerned the eviction of the 
applicant and his family from a camping site on which they had been living 
for thirteen years. The eviction was justified by alleging that the applicants had 
misbehaved and caused considerable nuisance at the site. According to the 
Strasbourg Court, the applicant‘s eviction amounted to a violation of Article 
8 of the ECHR, as no sufficient explanation for the measure taken was being 
offered. In so holding, it commented that gypsy communities were particularly 
vulnerable and that special attention had to be paid to their needs and lifestyle.
The case of Winterstein v. France pertained to the eviction of a number 
of traveller families who had been living in the same site for many years. The 
French courts issued evacuation orders contained a menace of penalties for non-
compliance. These orders were not enforced, but under the threat of sanctions 
many families moved out all the same. Some of them but not all were offered 
social housing. The applicants complained, inter alia, that the evacuation orders 
were in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. According to the ECtHR, there 
was indeed a violation of that Article: the national authorities – despite the lack 
of urgency and the absence of nuisances, and regardless of the lengthy period 
for which the applicants had remained on the site, the municipal authorities‘ 
toleration of that situation, the right to housing, and Articles 3 (Prohibition of 
torture) and 8 of the ECH – had decided to act. They had disregarded the fact 
that the applicants belonged to a vulnerable minority and that respect had to 
be paid to their needs and their way of life when it became necessary to end 
unlawful occupations of land and to devise alternative solutions.
The case of Achim v. Romania concerned the temporary placement of the 
applicants’ seven children due to the fact that the parents, Romanian Roma, 
had neglected their parental duties. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the 
applicants argued that the measure was unjustified and that the domestic Court 
of Appeal should not have dismissed their request for the return of the children. 
The parents’ application was rejected by the ECHR which found that the 
children’s placement was decided in their interest and that the authorities had 
endeavoured to balance that interest with the rights of applicants. The decisions 
of the domestic courts had been based not only on the parents’ difficult material 
situation but also on their neglect of the children’s state of health and of their 
educational and social development. The authorities had adopted a constructive 
attitude, advising the parents on how they could improve their financial situation 
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   85 14.12.2017   9:15:11
86
and parental skills; and they had taken the action necessary to facilitate the 
children’s return to their parents as soon as the later would adopt a cooperative 
attitude and improve their situation.
In Barnea and Caldararu v. Italy the issue was the removal of a 28-month old 
baby girl from her Romanian family who had moved to Italy in 2007 and settled 
in a Rome camp. This measure was to last for seven years; its long-term objective 
was the placement of the child in a foster family with a view to adoption. In 2009 
the family complained about the girl’s removal and her placement, the failure of 
the social services to establish a programme for the gradual return of the child 
to her family, her placement in a foster family and the reduction of meetings 
with her. The Court ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the 
Convention because the reasons invoked by Italian authorities for refusing to 
return the child to her parents had nothing very exceptional; in addition, the said 
authorities had not complied with a court decision providing for the girl’s return 
to family, and her return had been prevented by the authorities’ inertia in setting 
up a programme for reuniting the family. 
3.2.8 Begging Activities
The begging activities of members of Roma communities – foreign or domestic 
– are a preoccupation of some segments of European society. In the Swiss Canton 
of Geneva this preoccupation led to the adoption of a blanket prohibition on 
begging,22 an activity exercised chiefly by foreign families and groups – Roma 
and Travellers – spending the more clement time of the year in Geneva. Their 
presence explains why the new legislation, while applicable to all beggars, 
essentially affects Roma and Travellers. The case of Lăcătuş v. Switzerland,23 
which bears on the issue, is still pending before the Strasbourg Court, and the 
applicant, who was fined for begging, bases her complaint on alleged breaches 
of Articles 8 (Right to respect for private and family life), 10 (Freedom of 
expression)24 and 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR.
3.2.9 Protection of Property
An interesting case – Muñas Días v. Spain – arose in connexion with Article 1 of 
Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Convention,25 which protects private property. 
The case concerned two Spanish nationals of the Roma community who had 
married in 1971 according to the rites of that community. After the death of 
the husband in 2002, his widow asked for a survivor’s pension. Her request was 
denied by the Spanish authorities because in their view the applicant’s marriage 
had no civil effect in their country. The Court rejected the respondent State’s 
argument by pointing out that that State had supplied the applicant and her 
family with health care coverage and had collected social security contributions 
from her husband for more than nineteen years. To refuse to recognise her 
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   86 14.12.2017   9:15:11
87
marriage now, when she claimed a survivor‘s pension, amounted to a violation 
of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 1 and of that provision read together 
with Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination). One may have doubts about 
the Court‘s verdict, however. While it is undoubtedly true that the respondent 
State‘s conduct had been contradictory – recognising the applicant‘s marriage 
when claiming social security payments but refusing to do so when it came to 
serving a survivor‘s pension –, it is less evident why a State whose laws prescribe 
civil marriage should have to recognise particular marriage rites even after a 
long period of time. What remains, of course, is that to demand the payment of 
contributions and to refuse subsequently to pay a pension is an act of bad faith.
3.2.10 Right to Education
Article 2 of Additional Protocol No. 1 prescribes that no one shall be denied 
the right to education and teaching, and that “the State shall respect the right 
of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own 
religious and philosophical convictions” (Protocol No. 1, Art. 2).
The case of D. H. and Others v. Czech Republic examined by the Court‘s 
Grand Chamber involved 18 Czech Roma children who were placed in schools 
for children with special needs, including those with a mental or social handicap 
– a thoroughly racist measure as it suggests that all Roma children are mentally 
retarded or social misfits. The Grand Chamber found that the impugned mea- 
sure had a discriminatory effect on Roma children and breached Article 2 of 
Additional Protocol No. 1 combined with Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimina- 
tion) of the ECHR.
The second case – Oršuš v. Croatia – was brought before the Court‘s Grand 
Chamber as well. It concerned 15 Croatian Roma who had allegedly been dis-
criminated against during their school years by being segregated into classes for 
Roma only and had, thereby, suffered educational, psychological and emotional 
damage.
The respondent State contended that this measure had been necessary given 
the children‘s lack of command of the Croatian language. The Grand Chamber 
observed, however, that the tests leading to the placement in such classes were 
not focussed on language skills, nor was the educational programme centred 
on linguistic proficiency; furthermore the children‘s progress in this area was 
not specifically verified (Paragraph 159). The placement of the applicants in 
Roma-only classes was unjustified, therefore, and the Grand Chamber found a 
violation of Article 14 of the Convention viewed in conjunction with Article 2 
of Additional Protocol No. 1.
The case of Sampani and Others v. Greece related to Roma parents‘ com-
plaints that the Greek authorities had failed to provide schooling for their chil-
dren and had subsequently placed them in special classes, allegedly on account 
of their origin. In a first judgment, the ECtHR determined that the children 
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   87 14.12.2017   9:15:12
88
in question had not been appropriately tested either before their placement 
in special classes or at later stages. This, according to the Court, resulted in a 
violation of Article 14 of the Convention combined with Article 2 of Additional 
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In Sampanis and Others v. Greece, another case relating to primary edu-
cation, 140 Greek nationals from 38 families of Roma origin – children and pa-
rents, some of whom had been applicants in the preceding case – complained 
about the the education given to the children. The Court, again, found a breach 
of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 of Additional Protocol No. 1. It also 
recommended, in the framework of Article 46 of the ECHR, that the applicants 
who were still of school age be enrolled in another public school and that those 
who had reached the age of majority be admitted to second-chance schools or 
institutions of adult education established by the Ministry of Education.
These cases are special for two reasons: on the one hand for the authorities‘ 
apparent refusal to do anything to remedy the situation complained of in the first 
case and, on the other, for the Court‘s recommendation, made under Article 46 
(Binding force and execution of judgment), on how the situation created by the 
Government could be remedied.
3.2.11 Freedom of Association
In Vona v. Hungary, the issue was one of freedom of association (Article 11 
of the Convention). The authorities of the respondent State had dissolved an 
association which had organised anti-Roma rallies and demonstrations.
The Strasbourg Court found that the State had not infringed Article 11 of 
the Convention (Freedom of assembly and association), as it was entitled to take 
preventive measures to protect democratic values against associations menacing 
them. In the present case, a movement created by the applicant association 
had organised marches carrying a racist message which had had the effect of 
intimidating the Roma minority. These paramilitary manifestations had gone 
beyond a mere expression of disturbing or offensive ideas – which is a right 
protected by the ECHR – on account of the physical presence of organised 
activists. The only way to cope with the situation, according to the Court, had 
been to remove the organisational basis furnished by the association.
3.2.12 Political Rights
In Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia/Herzegovina, one of the two applicants was of 
Roma origin while the other was Jewish. Before the Court‘s Grand Chamber they 
contended that Bosnian law prevented them from running for the Presidency of 
the State and for its House of the People (Parliament), respectively. The Court 
agreed and identified violations of Article 14 of the Convention (Prohibition 
of discrimination), taken together with Article 3 of Additional Protocol No. 
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   88 14.12.2017   9:15:12
89
1 (Guarantee of free elections at reasonable intervals and by secret ballot). 
It considered discriminatory the arrangements made in the Dayton Peace 
Agreement under which only persons declaring affiliation with Bosnians, 
Croats or Serbs could be candidates. This may well be so, but one shudders to 
think of the possibility of an enterprising Slovene, or an ambitious Swiss, pre-
senting his or her candidacy and, after a refusal, complaining to the Strasbourg 
Court.
4. Conclusions
The treaty mechanisms ensuring the survival and preservation of minority 
groups, which came into being after the First World War, almost vanished in the 
wake of the Second War, a period characterised by the emergence of internatio-
nal system for the protection of human rights on the universal and regional 
levels. Traces of the old system have survived, however, and there appear to be 
signals for a revival of the technique of minority-specific instruments and rules.
It will be recalled that the initial policy – assimilating minority members‘ 
human rights to those of the majority of the population – was and is an excellent 
means for improving the formers‘ condition. But it may do little to ensure the 
preservation of minority groups as such. Conversely, minority-specific inter- 
national treaties and control mechanisms may do much to improve the situation 
of the groups as such. They establish differences between members of the mi-
nority and individuals belonging to the majority but do not necessarily improve 
the status of the individuals belonging to minority groups.
Thus, at first glance, the two approaches seem incompatible. One aims at 
granting every individual the full range of human rights and fundamental free-
doms; there is to be no discrimination, in principle, between those belonging to 
the majority and those forming part of minorities. The other, without necessarily 
improving the situation of the individuals forming part of a minority, serves to 
enhance the well-being of the minority group as such. These two objectives 
can, however, be judiciously combined by generally eradicating discrimination 
between different types of individuals and protecting the identity and the 
interests of the minority groups to which some of them belong wherever this is 
possible without gravely prejudicing individuals’ human rights.
As for the anthology of case-law presented in Chapter three of this contri-
bution, it may be said that the ECtHR has generally proved sensitive, not only 
to violations of the rights and freedoms protected by the ECHR and its Proto-
cols but, above and beyond that, to the need for pushing national authorities 
to investigate, prosecute and punish hate crimes committed against minority 
members – a need that still exists in some present-day situations. This sensitivity 
is particularly acute where the Court, as it did in the Winterstein and Adam cases, 
emphasises the special attention to be paid to members of vulnerable minorities, 
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   89 14.12.2017   9:15:12
90
their requirements and their lifestyle. This attention is extended by the Court to 
persons who are not members of a minority but associate with them (Škorjanec 
v. Croatia).
Now and then the claims of minority members are overstated, raising doubts 
as to their seriousness, and sometimes it even appears – as was the case in V.C. 
v. Slovakia – that the minority communities themselves have contributed to the 
discrimination against some of its members.
It must also be remembered that the respondent State is not always wrong. 
The ECtHR is a court of law and not a propagandist for human rights. It has 
to act with circumspection and cannot assume the existence of facts that are 
insufficiently established. In several of the cases examined in Chapter three, it 
had to reject allegations of infringements of provisions of the Convention or of 
a protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 on discrimination (Anguelova, 
Ognyanova, Câmpeanu, Buckley, Chapman).
Article 14 is, of course, a key provision for the issues examined in the present 
contribution. A question that arose is who has to prove discrimination. The 
problem is a difficult one since bias is largely a state of mind and, thus, difficult 
to establish. It would nevertheless seem appropriate that if an applicant claims 
discrimination, he or she should bear the burden of proof. Generally the ECtHR 
seems to heed this rule, but not always (see the Stoica case).
Another point to be made is that minority problems can arise anywhere; 
they are not confined to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Issues 
pertaining to the human rights of Roma and Travellers have appeared in Western 
European States (Great Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, Greece and Switzerland), 
as is shown by the cases described above. They arise in connexion with many of 
the rights and freedoms secured by the ECHR and its Additional Protocols. The 
central provision, however, is Article 14 of the Convention on discrimination, as 
pointed out above.
Finally, it follows from the Sampani and Sampanis judgments that the 
Strasbourg Court does not always abstain from dealing with enforcement but 
occasionally ventures into that field, which is covered by Article 46 of the Con- 
vention and is in principle reserved to the Committee of Ministers of the Council 
of Europe, by recommending measures which might alleviate an existing si-
tuation.
Have the activities of the European system of protection of human rights 
improved the situation of Roma and Travellers? It is obvious that cases continue 
to be brought, violations established and judgments delivered. It is also evident 
that the number of cases submitted does not diminish.26 This means that there 
remain a substantial number of human rights violations requiring remedial 
action, but this may actually be a positive sign: it shows that potential applicants 
disposing of no domestic remedies or having unsuccessfully exhausted them are 
no longer afraid to claim their human rights and fundamental freedoms on the 
international level.
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   90 14.12.2017   9:15:12
91
References
Achim v. Romania, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 45959/11, Judgment of 
24 October 2017(not final). [Section IV]. 
Adam v. Slovakia, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 68066/12, Judgment of 
26 July 2016. [Section III].
Agreement between Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, on the one hand, and Lithuania, on 
the other, of 8 May 1924. League of Nations – Treaty Series 29, 86–115.
Agreement between the representatives of Finland and Sweden, of 27 June 1921. League of 
Nations, Official Journal 2 (7).
American Convention on Human Rights, „Pact of San Jose“, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969, 
Organization of American States, http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36510.html 
(accessed 1 March 2017).
Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 55523/00, 
Judgment of 26 July 2007. [Section V].
Anguelova v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 38361/97, Judgment 
of 13 June 2002. [Section II].
Bagdonavicius and Others v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 
19481/06, Judgment of 11 October 2016. [Section III].
Balázs v. Hungary, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 15529/12, Judgment of 
20 October 2015.[Section II].
Barnea and Caldararu v. Italy, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 37931/15, 
Judgment of 22 June 2017. [Section I].
Beganović v. Croatia, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 46423/06, Judgment 
of 25 June 2009. [Section I].
Bloed, A. (ed.), 1993. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Analysis and Basic 
Documents, 1972 – 1993. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 45–115.
Buckley v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 20348/92, 
Judgment of 25 September 1996. [Chamber].
Burden v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 13378/05, Judg-
ment of 29 April 2008, Para. 44 [GC].
Capotorti, F., 1977. The International Protection of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Lin-
guistic Minorities since 1919. United Nations Economic and Social Council.
Capotorti, F., 1991. Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic 
Minorities, Geneva UN Center for Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/Add.1–
7., Para. 568.
Capotorti, F., 1997. Minorities. In R. Bernhardt (ed.) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 
Vol. III ( J–P). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 410–424.
Center of Legal Resources on Behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania, European Court of Human 
Rights, Application No. 47848/08, Judgment of 17 July 2014. [GC].
Chapman and Others v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 
27238/95, Judgment of 18 January 2001. [GC].
Connors v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 66746/01, 
Judgment of 27 May 2004. [Section I].
Convention of 9 October 1920, signed between the Polish Government and the Danzig Autho-
rities. League of Nations – Treaty Series 6, 190–207.
Costică Moldovan and Others v. Romania, European Court of Human Rights, Application Nos. 
8229/04, 8234/04 and 12713/94, Decision of 15 February 2011. [Section III].
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   91 14.12.2017   9:15:12
92
Council of Europe, 2007. Human Rights in International Law – Collected Texts. Council of 
Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
Čonka v. Belgium, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 51564/88, Judgment of 
5 February 2002. [Section III].
D. H. and Others v. Czech Republic, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 
57325/00, Judgment of 13 November 2007. [GC].
Dayton Peace Agreement – General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzego-
vina, of 21 November 1995. International Legal Materials 35 (1), 75–169, https://www.
cambridge.org/core/journals/international-legal-materials/issue/0E44AA3480DDA15
901E13730E873F0A2 (accessed 1 March 2017).
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Mino-
rities, 1993. UN General Assembly A/RES/47/135 47/135, 3 February 1993.
Dimitrova and Others v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 44862/04, 
Judgment of 27 January 2011. [Section V].
Drzewicki, K., 2009. Minority Protection within the OSCE. In D. Thürer & Z. Kędzia (eds.) 
Managing Diversity. Protection of Minorities in International Law. Schulthess, Zurich, 108–
131.
ECHR – European Convention of Human Rights, http://www.echr.coe.int/pages/home.
aspx?p=basictexts (accessed 1 March 2017).
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of 5 November 1992. Council of 
Europe. European Treaty Series 148.
European Court of Human Rights, 2017. Roma and Travellers. Factsheet, http://www.echr.coe.
int/Documents/FS_Roma_ENG.pdf (accessed 1 March 2017).
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of 1 February 1995. Council 
of Europe. European Treaty Series 157.
Geneva Penal Law, 2006. Loi penale genevoise, 24 March 2006, Législation genevoise E4 05, 
https://www.ge.ch/legislation/rsg/f/s/rsg_E4_05.html (accessed 7 December 2017).
Gergely v. Romania, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 57885/00, Judgment 
of 26 April 2007. [Section III].
Helsinki Final Act, 1975. OSCE, http://www.osce.org/helsinki-final-act?download=true 
(accessed 1 March 2017).
Henrard, K., 2013. Minorities, International Protection. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public 
International Law, http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/
law-9780199231690-e847?rskey=ydAyDD&result=1&prd=EPIL (accessed 1 March 
2017).
Hofmann, R., 1995. Minderheitenschutz in Europa: Völker- und staatsrechtliche Lage im Überblick. 
Mann Verlag, Berlin.
ICCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, UN General Assembly Reso-
lution 2200A (XXI), 16 December 1966, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Professio-
nalInterest/ccpr.pdf (accessed 1 March 2017).
Ilhan v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 22277/93, Judgment of 27 
June 2000, Para. 52.
Kalanyos and Others v. Romania, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 57884/00, 
Judgment of 26 April 2007. [Section II].
Kotry and Others v. Romania, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 13624/03, 
Judgment of 12 June 2012. [Section IV].
Kymlicka, W., 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Clarendon, 
Oxford Press.
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   92 14.12.2017   9:15:12
93
Lăcătuş v. Switzerland, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 14065/15, filed on 
17 March 2015 and communicated on 11 February 2016.
Malinverni, G., 2016. La minorité rom devant la Cour européenne des droits de l‘homme, in 
A. Ziegler & J. Kuffer (eds.) Mélanges en l‘honneur du Professeur Barbara Wilson. Schul-
thess, Zurich, 145–164.
Meijknecht, A., 2001. Towards International Personality: The Position of Minorities and Indigenous 
Peoples in International Law. Intersentia, Antwerpen, Groningen, Oxford.
Micallef v. Malta, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 17056/06, Judgment of 
15 October 2009, Para. 44 to 51 [GC]. 
Moldovan and Others v. Romania, European Court of Human Rights, Application Nos. 
41138/96 and 64320/96, Judgment of 12 July 2007. [Section II].
Muñas Días v. Spain, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 49151/07, Judgment 
of 8 December 2009. [Section III].
N. B. v. Slovakia, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 29518/10, Judgment of 
12 June 2012. [Section IV].
Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 43577/98, 
Judgment of 6 July 2005. [GC].
Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, Application Nos. 43577/98 
and 43578/98, Judgment of 6 July 2005, Para. 145 [GC].
Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 
46317/99, Judgment of 23 February 2006. [Section I].
Oršuš v. Croatia, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 15766/03, Judgment of 
16 March 2010. [GC].
Pentassuglia, G., 2001. Minorities in International Law: An Introductory Study. Minority Issues 
Handbook, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
Permanent Court of International Justice, 1935. Minority Schools in Albania, Advisory Opinion, 
PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 64.
Polzer, M., Kalčina, L. & Žagar, M. (eds.), 2002. Slovenija in evropski standardi varstva narodnih 
manjšin [Slovenia and European Standards for the Protection of National Minorities]. Informa-
cijsko dokumentacijski Center Sveta Evrope pri NUK, Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja, 
Avstrijski inštitut za vzhodno in jugovzhodno Evropo, Ljubljana. 
Protocol No. 1 – Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-
mental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11, 20 March 1952. Council of Europe. 
European Treaty Series 9.
Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms, 4 Novembre 2000. Council of Europe. European Treaty Series 177. 
Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms, Securing Certain Rights and Freedoms Other than Those Already Included in the 
Convention and in the First Protocol thereto, 16 September 1963. Council of Europe. 
European Treaty Series 46.
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples‘ Rights on the Establishment of the 
African Court on Human and Peoples‘ Rights, 10 June 1998. Organization of African 
Unity, http://www.refworld.org/docid/3f4b19c14.html (accessed 1 March 2017).
Randelović and Others v. Montenegro, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 
66641/10, Judgment of 19 September 2017(not final). [Section II]. 
Sampani and Others v. Greece, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 59608/09, 
Judgment of 11 December 2012. [Section I].
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   93 14.12.2017   9:15:13
94
Sampanis and Others v. Greece. European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 32526/05, 
Judgment of 5 June 2008. [Section I].
Schücking, W. & Wehberg, H., 1924. Die Satzung des Völkerbundes. Fr. Vahlen, Berlin.
Sečić v. Croatia. European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 40116/02, Judgment of 31 
May 2007. [Section II].
Seićova and Others v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 310/04, 
Judgment of 18 November 2010. [Section IV].
Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia/Herzegovina, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 
27996/06 and 34836/06, Judgment of 22 December 2009. [GC].
Stec and Others v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Application Nos. 
65731/01and 65900/01, Judgment of 12 April 2006, Paras. 50 to 52 [GC].
Stoica v. Romania, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 42722/02, Judgment of 
4 April 2008. [Section III].
Škorjanec v. Croatia, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 25536/14, Judgment 
of 28 March 2017. [Section II].
Thornberry, P. & Estébanez, M. A. M., 2004. Minority Rights in Europe: A Review of the Work and 
Standards of the Council of Europe. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. 
Thornberry, P., 2001. International Law and the Rights of Minorities. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 
New York.
Thürer, D. & Kędzia, Z. (eds.), 2009. Managing Diversity: Protection of Minorities in International 
Law. Schulthess, Zurich.
Treaty on Good Neighbourly Relations and Friendly Cooperation between Germany and 
Poland, 17 June 1991. United Nations Treaty Series 1708, 502–517.
UDHR – Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. UN General Assembly Resolution A/
RES/217 A (III), 10 December 1948.
UN Human Rights Committee, 1994. CCPR General Comment No. 23, Article 27 (Rights of 
Minorities), 8 April 1994, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, http://www.refworld.org/
docid/453883fc0.html (accessed 1 March 2017). 
V. C. v. Slovakia, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 18968/07, Judgment of 8 
November 2011. [Section IV]. 
V. M. v. Belgium, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 60125/11, Judgment of 7 
July 2016. [GC].
Vona v. Hungary, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 35943/10, Judgment of 
9 July 2013. [Section II].
Weller, M. (ed.), 2007. Universal Minority Rights: A Commentary on the Jurisprudence of Interna-
tional Courts and Treaty Bodies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Winterstein v. France, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 27013/07, Judgment 
of 17 October 2003.[Section V].
notes
1 The present study is an enlarged version of a presentation made in Ljubljana on 16 December 
2016 at a ceremony to celebrate the 80th anniversary of Professor Ernest Petrič.
2 See Capotorti (1977, 1991, 1997) and Henrard (2013, 1–16). 
3 Convention of 9 October 1920.
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   94 14.12.2017   9:15:13
95
4 Resolution of the League of Nations Council of 24 June 1921, see Schücking and Wehberg 
(1924), and Agreement between the representatives of Finland and Sweden of 27 June 1921.
5 Agreement between Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, on the one hand, and Lithuania, on the 
other, of 8 May 1924.
6 But not that relating to the Aland archipelago, which remains based on a 1921 decision of the 
League of Nations Council and on Finnish legislation (1951).
7 For the text of these provisions, see Council of Europe (2007, 33, 59).
8 Namely, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 27 June 1986 (Council of Europe 
2007, 595), the American Convention on Human Rights of 22 November 1969 (Council 
of Europe 2007, 643) and the European Convention on Human Rights of 4 November 1950 
(Council of Europe 2007, 309).
9 See Helsinki Final Act and also Drzewicki (2009) and Henrard (2013, 49–50). For the evolution 
of the CSCE in general, see Bloed (1993, 45–115). 
10 On 6 December 1994, the CSCE became the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in 
Europe (OSCE) without, however, achieving the status of a full-fledged intergovernmental 
organisation.
11 Documents of Budapest (1994), Lisbon (1996), Istanbul (1999), Maastricht (2003), see 
Drzewicki (2009, 115).
12 On this distinction, see also Henrard (2013, 21–29), and Permanent Court of International 
Justice, Advisory Opinion of 6 April 1935.
13 There are a number of publications presenting historical developments and the practice of 
minority rights, especially in the European context, as well as the discussion, in recent years, on the 
rights of minority communities and those belonging to individual members of such communities: 
Kymlicka (1995), Meijknecht (2001), Pentassuglia (2001), Polzer et al. (2002), Thornberry and 
Estébanez (2004).
14 “A difference of treatment is /…/ discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; 
in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship 
of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised” (Stec and 
Others v. United Kingdom and the cases cited; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria).
15 See above, p. 75.
16 There is also, of course, the possibility for any Contracting Party to “refer to the Court any 
alleged breach of the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto by any other /… 
/ Contracting Party” (ECHR, Article 33). So far this opportunity, offered by Article 33 of the 
Convention, has only been used ten times.
17 See also Malinverni (2016); European Court of Human Rights, Roma and Travellers. Factsheet 
(2017).
18 Beganović v. Croatia, Kotry and Others v. Romania, Seićova and Others v. Bulgaria, Dimitrova 
and Others v. Bulgaria, Balázs v. Hungary.
19 A further case was brought concerning difficulties with the execution of the general measures 
promised by the Government. The application was declared inadmissible by a decision of 15 
February 2011, the Court noting, in particular, that it did not have jurisdiction to verify whether 
a Contracting State had complied with the obligations imposed on it by one of its judgments. 
Costică Moldovan and Others v. Romania.
20 Article 30 of the ECHR provides: “Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious 
question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or where the 
  RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 79 / 2017
L. CAfLISCH Manjšinska vprašanja: kako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice obravnavalo ...
RIG_79.indd   95 14.12.2017   9:15:13
96
resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment 
previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its 
judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the 
case objects.”
21 The applicant must show, in principle, that he/she is “directly affected” by the measure complained 
of, see Burden v. United Kingdom, Para. 44 [GC]; Ilhan v. Turkey, Para. 52. As a rule, the presumed 
victim must be alive; if he/she is not, the victim status of relatives may be recognised where the 
complaints made are of a general interest pertaining to the respect of human rights, if they as heirs 
have a legitimate interest, or on the basis of the direct effect on the applicants’ own rights. Micallef 
v. Malta, Para. 44 to 51 [GC]. The Court does not, however, recognise locus standi to anyone 
simply because the Convention allegedly has been breached. The situation is different under 
other human rights instruments which allow non-governmental organisations to act on behalf 
of individuals. See Articles 5.3 and 34.6 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and 
People’s Rights of 10 June 1998 and Article 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights of 
22 November 1969.
22 See Article 11A of the Geneva Penal Law (2006).
23 No. 14065/15, application filed on 17 March 2015 and communicated on 11 February 2016.
24 At first glance, the reference to Article 10 of the ECHR appears surprising. The application 
invokes, however, a decision (G 15510-9) taken on 30 June 2012 by the Austrian Constitutional 
Court and pertaining to a Salzburg law on territorial security which prohibits begging in public 
areas. In that decision the Court held that asking for donations in public places, in a discreet and 
non-aggressive way, was protected by Article 10.1 of the ECHR which guarantees the freedom of 
expression.
25 European Treaty Series, No. 9.
26 The factsheet cited in note 17 mentions a series of cases decided between 2014 and 2017.
79 / 2017 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES
L. CAfLISCH Minority Issues: How The European Court of Human Rights Has Dealt with Roma and ...
RIG_79.indd   96 14.12.2017   9:15:13