European Court of Human Rights
Council of
Application
Under Article 34 of the European Convention
on Human Rights and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of the Court
I.
PARTIES
A. Applicants
a)
Name and surname of the 1st
applicant: Stjepan Oršuš
b)
Date of birth: 22 December 1991
c)
Permanent adress: Dravska 17,
Orehovica, Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Ljiljana
Oršuš (mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 2nd
applicant: Mirjana Oršuš
b)
Date of birth: 30 September 1990
c)
Permanent adress: Lončarevo 8,
Podturen, Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Olga Oršuš
(mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 3rd
applicant: Gordan Oršuš
b)
Date of birth: 16 June 1988
c)
Permanent adress: Lončarevo bb,
Podturen, Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Ljubica
Oršuš (mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 4th
applicant: Dejan Balog
b)
Date of birth: 10 November 1990
c)
Permanent adress: Lončarevo bb,
Podturen, Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Bojana Oršuš
(mother)
a)
Name and surnajme of the 5th
applicant: Siniša Balog
b)
Date of birth: 25 January 1993
c)
Permanent adress: Lončarevo bb,
Podturen, Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Bojana Oršuš
(mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 6th
applicant: Manuela Kalanjoš
b)
Date of birth: 12 February 1990
c)
Permanent adress: Lončarevo bb,
Podturen, Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Nadica Oršuš
(mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 7th
applicant: Josip Oršuš (Kalanjoš)
b)
Date of birth: 28 February 1993
c)
Permanent adress: Lončarevo bb,
Podturen, Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Nadica Oršuš
(mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 8th
applicant: Biljana Oršoš
b)
Date of birth: 20 April 1990
c)
Permanent adress: Lončarevo 12,
Podturen, Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Jadranka
Kalanjoš (mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 9th
applicant: Smiljana Oršuš
b)
Date of birth: 6 April 1992
c)
Permanent adress: Lončarevo 12,
Podturen, Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Jadranka
Kalanjoš (mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 10th
applicant: Branko Oršuš
b)
Date of birth: 10 March 1990
c)
Permanent adress: Lončarevo 3, Podturen,
Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Ivan Oršuš
(father)
a)
Name and surname of the 11th
applicant: Jasmin Bogdan
b)
Date of birth: 11 May 1990
c)
Permanent adress: Trnovec 36a,
Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Rafael
Bogdan (father)
a)
Name and surname of the 12th
applicant: Josip Bogdan
b)
Date of birth: 13 September 1991
c)
Permanent adress: Trnovec 36a,
Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Rafael
Bogdan (father)
a)
Name and surname of the 13th
applicant: Dijana Oršuš
b)
Date of birth: 20 January 1994
c)
Permanent adress: Trnovec 13,
Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Zlata Oršuš
(mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 14th
applicant: Dejan Oršuš
b)
Date of birth: 2 August 1991
c)
Permanent adress: Trnovec 13,
Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Zlata Oršuš
(mother)
a)
Name and surname of the 15th
applicant: Danijela Kalanjoš
b)
Date of birth: 7 October 1993
c)
Permanent adress: Trnovec 6b,
Međimurje, Croatia
d)
Name of legal guardian: Stojan
Kalanjoš (father)
Representatives authorised by the applicants:
a) European Roma Rights
Center (ERRC), 1386 Budapest 62, PO Box 906/93, Hungary; phone: +361 413 2200,
fax: +361 413 2201, e-mail: office@errc.org. The ERRC is an international
public interest law organization which monitors the human rights situation of
Roma across Europe and provides legal defense in cases of human rights abuse.
The ERRC has consultative status with both the Council of Europe and the United
Nations.
b) Croatian Helsinki
Committee (CHC), Ilica 15/3, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; phone: +3851 481
2322, fax: +3851 481 2324, e-mail: hho@zg.htnet.hr. The
CHC is one of the largest, oldest and most famous non-governmental
organizations in Croatia. It is an independent association of Croatian
citizens, founded in order to protect and promote human rights and operates as
a voluntary non-political and non-profit organization.
c) Lovorka Kušan,
attorney-at-law, Gupčeva 16, 10 310 Ivanić-Grad, Croatia; phone/fax:
+3851 288 2447, e-mail: lovorka.kusan@zg.htnet.hr.
This application is being
submitted jointly by the ERRC, CHC, and Ms. Lovorka Kušan, as the appointed
representatives of the applicants.
We respectfully request that
all correspndence be directed to the ERRC.
B. High contracting party
This application is addressed
against the Republic of Croatia.
II. FACTS OF
THE CASE
II.1. All 15 applicants
in the instant case have in the past attended, and at present still attend,
segregated classes for the Roma only in what are otherwise “regular” primary
schools in the villages of Macinec, Podturen and Orehovica in the County of
Međimurje, Croatia.[1]
II.2. In April 2002,
when the legal case was launched domestically, the applicants were attending
the first, second, or third grade of one of the primary schools in question and
all had very good grades in Croatian.[2] This is particularly
significant as poor Croatian language skills are often referred to by the
authorities as an excuse for the segregation of Romani children within the
Croatian educational system.[3]
II.3. We respectfully
submit that the teaching organized for the applicants attending separate
Roma-only classes was significantly reduced in scope and volume as compared to
the officially prescribed teaching plan and indeed the quality of education
delivered in the non-Roma classes.[4] Moreover, we submit that the
applicants' placement in the Roma-only classes stemmed from a blatant practice
of discrimination based on their race/ethnicity carried out by the schools
concerned, the dominating and pervasive anti-Romani sentiment of the local
non-Romani community, and ultimately the unwillingness and/or inability of the
Croatian authorities, local and national alike, to provide them with redress as
well as to abide by the relevant international and domestic legal standards.[5]
Irefutable evidence to this effect was obtained in the course of legal
procedings described below.[6]
II.4. As a result of this practice, stretching back
to the very beginning of their primary education, the applicants have suffered
and continue to suffer severe educational, psychological and emotional harm. In
particular, they have a) by being subjected to a curriculum far inferior to
that in mainstream classes, sustained damage to their opportunities to secure
adequate employment in the future, b) been stigmatized with the effects of
diminished self-esteem and feelings of humiliation, alienation and lack of
self-worth, and c) been forced to study in racially/ethnically segregated
classrooms and hence denied the benefits of a multi-cultural educational
environment.[7]
II.5. According to the data provided by the
Međimurje County Office of Education, Culture, Information, Sport and
Technical Culture, in school year 2000/2001 all primary schools in the County
had a total of 4 577 pupils of whom 865 or 18% were Romani. Of the aggregate
number of Romani pupils, 59.07% attended separate Roma-only classes while
merely 40.93% enjoyed the benefits of an ethnically integrated educational
environment, primarily in the higher grades. Or in other words, even though
Romani pupils comprised only a small number of the total primary school
population at the county level (18%) an overwhelming number of them (59.07%)
ended up in the segregated classes for the Roma only.[8]
II.6. In school year 2001/2002, the overall
situation remained unchanged. In particular, just for illustration and again
based on official government statistics, we note that in the primary schools in
Macinec and Kuršanec as much as 83.33% and 88.49% of all Romani students
respectively continued attending separate classes for the Roma only.[9]
II.7. Finally, in school year 2001/2002 as regards
the primary schools in Macinec, Podturen and Orehovica, Romani children
accounted for 71.72% of the total number of pupils in the first year, only
11.76% in the seventh year and 8.94% in the eighth and final year. These
figures clearly demonstrate that Romani pupils have a much lower chance of
finishing primary school as compared to their non-Romani peers.[10]
III. DOMESTIC
PROCEEDINGS
III.1. On
III.2. The action was filed against the Republic of
Croatia/Ministry of Education, the
III.3. The Administrative Disputes Act provides
that a lawsuit under Article 67 can be brought if: a) there is an unlawful
action that has already taken place, b) this action has been undertaken by a government
official, a government body/agency, or another legal entity, c) it has resulted
in a violation of one or more of the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and d)
the Croatian legal system does not provide for any other avenue of judicial
redress.
III.4. On
III.5. On
III.6. The oral hearings on the merits of the
case were held on 24 - 26 September 2002. During these hearings, the
respondents themselves explicitly or implicitly confirmed all of the
plaintiffs’ assertions. In particular, that the plaintiffs were placed in
separate classes for the Roma only based on their race/ethnicity and ultimately
also that the quality of education in such classes was well below the quality
of education in other classes, in each of the schools at issue. Evidence to
that effect is contained in the official court transcripts of the oral hearings
attached to this application and is as such irrefutable.[18]
III.7. Initially, during the hearings, the
respondents claimed both: a) that the Romani pupils in general, thereby
implicitly including the plaintiffs, had insufficient Croatian language skills
compared to the other students, which is why they had to be placed into
separate classes[19], and b) at the same time
incredibly, that the quality of education in those very classes was just as
high as the quality of education in the classes attended by the non-Roma.[20] Subsequently, however, the
respondents acknowledged that the education in the Roma-only classes attended
by the plaintiffs was indeed inferior by up to 30%[21] and also could not contest the
official documents attached to their own submissions filed with the Court on
III.8. In addition, during the oral hearings the
respondents expressly stated that over the years they have been willing to
transfer Romani students from separate Roma-only classes into an integrated
environment providing that their Croatian language skills were adequate and
upon obtaining consent from their parents.[24] Later on, however, the
respondents went on to concede that they did not in fact take into account the
plaintiffs’ Croatian language skills or the wishes of the plaintiffs’ parents
for their children to attend racially integrated classes and did not consider
the legal action filed against the schools as a compelling expression of their
will in this regard.[25] Finally, in Court, Mr. Branko
Levačić, heard in his capacity as the official head
of Međimurje County (Župan), stated personally that “honestly
speaking” he
would not send his child to a school with a large proportion of Romani students
and would instead “exercise his constitutional right” to enroll his child into
another school where he/she would receive a better education.[26]
III.9. On 26 September
2002, the Čakovec Municipal Court issued a judgement rejecting the action
filed by the plaintiffs.[27] Notwithstanding the de facto admission on the
part of the respondents in the course of the proceedings and the abundance of
other supporting evidence[28], the court failed to provide the
plaintiffs with a remedy for the violations suffered. In its “reasoning”, inter
alia, it mostly refused to look at the specifics of the case and instead
proclaimed in general that: a) unlike non-Romani students, most Romani students
have serious Croatian language problems which makes it appropriate and legal to
place them into separate classes for Roma only; b) for reasons of not breaking
up the “stability” and “homogeneity” of such Roma-only classes, it is equally
appropriate not to integrate even those Romani students with sufficient
Croatian language skills into racially mixed classes, and c) amazingly, the
teaching organized for the plaintiffs attending separate Roma-only classes, due
to allaged Croatian language difficulties, is itself in no way inferior
compared to the officially prescribed teaching plan and program.
III.10. The plaintiffs’ counsel was served with
this judgment on
III.11. On
III.12. On 14 November 2002, the appeal was
rejected and the decision of the Čakovec Municipal Court confirmed. [35] In so doing, the
III.13. Having thus exhausted all other domestic
legal remedies, on 19 December 2002 the applicants filed a complaint with the
III.14. On 3 November 2003, the applicants’ counsel
filed a submission with the
III.15. Throughout the proceedings, in their
written as well as in their oral pleadings, the applicants repeatedly and
extensively cited relevant international legal authority - in particular the
European Convention on Human Rights and this Court’s jurisprudence.
III.16. During the course of the proceedings, all
of the plaintiffs, including the 15 applicants in this case, were subjected to
various forms of victimization aimed at forcing them to give up their legal
case. On 1 July 2002, the ERRC sent a letter to the Croatian Prime Minister, at
that time Mr. Ivica Račan, stating that the primary schools at issue, the
Međimurje
County local government, and indeed the municipal welfare centers had
respectively: a) organized at least one parent-teacher meeting in order to put
pressure on the Romani parents to withdraw their complaint, b) cancelled
various social programs aimed at improving the situation of Roma, c) threatened
withholding social benefits, and d) informed the Romani parents that as of the
next school year they will have to pay for their children’s textbooks
themselves. In addition, non-Romani parents whose children attended the primary
school in Macinec had also all signed an open letter requesting that their sons
and daughters be allowed to attend/continue attending segregated classes - i.e.
separate classes for the non-Roma only. In this undoubtedly racist petition,
the non-Romani parents “explained” that integrated education was unacceptable
as it would include all children regardless of their abilities and that the
non-Romani children would therefore suffer in terms of not being able to
realize fully their educational potential which is far beyond that of the
majority of Romani students. In its letter, the ERRC requested the Prime
Minister to protect the applicants and their families from all forms of victimization
and to be informed of his actions in this regard.[38] More than two and a half years
later the ERRC is yet to receive a response.
III.17. On 14 October 2003, the ERRC issued a press
release stating that over the past several years, Ms. Marta Vidaković
Mukić, Croatian Deputy Ombudsman, has consistently and with great
professional integrity condemned the widespread practice of racial segregation
of Romani pupils within Croatian primary schools. Instead of prompting
appropriate government action to remedy the situation, however, her work placed
her under increasing pressure from both the Međimurje County local
government/parliament and other “concerned” individuals/groups who have
suggested that her activities are damaging to the “country’s reputation abroad”
and even requested her removal from office. In its press release, the ERRC
protested against such harassment/intimidation and appealed to the Croatian
central government and civil society alike to stand up in defense of the Deputy
Ombudsman’s right and obligation to report the facts as they are, and request
redress for those whose rights have been violated.[39]
III.18. Finally, on 28 October 2004,
the ERRC and the CHC sent a joint letter to Dr Dragan Primorac,
IV. VIOLATIONS OF
THE CONVENTION
IV.1. The applicants
respectfully submit that the instant case discloses compelling violations of a
number of rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (the
“Convention”) and its Protocols - in particular, of Article 3, Article 2
Protocol 1, Article 14 taken together with Article 2 Protocol 1, Article 6, and
Article 13 taken together with Article 3, Article 2 Protocol 1, Article 6 and
Article 14.
a) Violation of Article 3
Relevant jurisprudence
IV.2. Article 3 prohibits “torture” and “inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.” Only ill-treatment which attains a “minimum
level of severity” falls within the scope of this prohibition.[41] In the Greek case, the
Commission found that Article 3 covered “the infliction of mental suffering by
creating a state of anguish and stress by means other than bodily assault.”[42] Degrading treatment may thus in
addition to physical injury include mental suffering[43] and is defined as treatment that
“grossly humiliates [an individual] before others or drives him to act against
his will or conscience.”[44]
IV.3. This Court has further divined that, in
evaluating claims of a violation of Article 3, it will take into account a
range of factors “such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental
effects and in some cases, the sex, age, and state of health of the victim …”[45] In doing so, the Court rightly
recognized that the level of ill-treatment required to be “degrading” depends,
in part, on the vulnerability of the victim to physical or emotional suffering.[46]
IV.4. The former
Commission and this Court have in addition both held that racial discrimination
may amount to degrading treatment in violation of Article 3. In particular, in
the East African Asians case[47], the Commission affirmed that “a
special importance should be attached to discrimination based on race”[48],
that such discrimination could “of itself amount to degrading treatment within
the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention”[49], and that
“differential treatment on the basis of race might, in certain circumstances,
constitute a special form of affront to human dignity”[50].
Ultimately, in view of the facts in the case at issue, the Commission held that
the applicants who had been denied admission to the United Kingdom had indeed
been “publicly subjected” to “racial discrimination” and had suffered “degrading
treatment in the sense of Article 3 of the Convention.”[51] Since then,
the Commission has expressly confirmed its reasoning in the East African Asians
case on a number of ocassions.[52] Finally, in the inter-state case
of Cyprus v. Turkey, in 2001, this Court held that degrading treatment based on
race and in breach of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention can on the same facts
gave rise to an additional violation of Article 3.[53]
IV.5. Apart from the
Court’s own jurisprudence, other jurisdictions have also recognized the
intrinsic significance of “dignity” in dealing with equality claims and the
fact that racial discrimination and segregation can be degrading. Thus, for
example, in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, the United States
Supreme Court’s rationale was also based on
the dehumanizing/degrading effects of the doctrine of “separate but equal”. In
particular, the Court stressed that racial segregation in education
deprived children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities,
reasoning, in part, as follows:“To separate [children] from others of similar
age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of
inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts
and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”[54]
The applicants’ complaint
IV.6. The applicants allege that they have been
subjected to racial/ethnic segregation in education, as a particularly severe
form of racial/ethnic discrimination, and that as a result of this practice
they have suffered degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the
Convention.
IV.7. In particular, due to their placement in
separate classes for Roma students only, the applicants have endured severe
psychological and emotional harm being: a) stigmatized as “stupid” or
“retarded” with effects that will brand them for life, including diminished
self-esteem and feelings of humiliation, alienation and lack of self-worth, and
b) forced to study in a racially segregated environment and hence denied the
benefits of a multi-cultural education.[55] Finally, the applicants, as well
as most other Romani pupils in Međimurje County, were placed in separate Roma-only
classes in such overwhelmingly disproportionate numbers that, effectively,
there exist two separate school systems for members of different racial groups
within otherwise regular Croatian primary schools, which in and of itself
constitutes degrading treatment and as such a violation of Article 3 of the
Convention.[56]
IV.8. In view of the above and the facts of the
instant case, we respectfully submit that the applicants have clearly suffered
abuse well above the Article 3 threshold and that the Croatian authorities must
therefore be held responsible. In addition, we note that being Romani, and as
such members of a particularly disadvantaged minority group, the applicants
must be deemed as especially vulnerable to treatment in violation of Article 3.
b) Violation of Article 2 Protocol 1
Relevant jurisprudence
IV.9. Article 2 Protocol 1 reads as follows: “No
person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any
functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State
shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in
conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
IV.10. This Court has explained that “the education
of children is the whole process whereby, in any society, adults endeavour to
transmit their beliefs, culture and other values to the young, whereas teaching
or instruction refers in particular to the transmission of knowledge and to
intellectual development”.[57] Whilst states are not obliged to establish a particular
form of education, they are required to ensure a right of access to the
educational facilities that do exist.[58] In the case of Kjeldsen, Busk,
Madsen and Pederson v.
“The second sentence of Article 2 is binding upon
the Contracting States in the exercise of each and every function - it speaks
of ‘any functions’ that they undertake in the sphere of education and teaching,
including that consisting of the organization and financing of public
education. Furthermore, the second sentence of Article 2 must be read
together with the first which enshrines the right of everyone to
education. It is on to this fundamental right that is grafted the right
of parents to respect for their religious and philosophical convictions …
[paragraph 50] … As is shown by its very structure, Article 2 constitutes
a whole that is dominated by its first sentence. By binding themselves not to
‘deny the right to education’ the Contracting States guarantee to anyone within
their jurisdiction, ‘a right of access to educational institutions existing at
a given time’ … The right set out in the second sentence of Article 2 is an adjunct
of this fundamental right to education … [paragraph 52]”
IV.11. The former Commission and this Court have
also stated on several occasions that the right to education is principally
concerned with primary and secondary schooling and moreover that for this right
to be effective the education provided must be “adequate and appropriate”. Both
Convention organs have consistently retained their competence to asses to what
extent states have complied with this requirement.[60]
IV.12. Finally, “philosophical convictions”
referred to in the second sentence of Article 2 Protocol 1 have been defined by
the Court as not mere opinions or ideas but beliefs which “are worthy of
respect in a democratic society” and are not incompatible with human dignity. [61]
The applicants’ complaint
IV.13. In view of the above, separate and apart
from claims of racial/ethnic segregation and discrimination, the applicants
allege that, as a result of their placement in separate classes for the Roma
pupils only, they have been denied their right to education. In particular, the
applicants submit that they have been: a) subjected to a curriculum far
inferior to the one officially prescribed and taught in the non-Roma classes
(up to 30%), a fact admitted by the respondents in the domestic proceedings[62]; b) effectively denied the
opportunity of ever attending integrated classes and performing well there[63]; c) publicly stigmatized as less
intelligent with effects that will brand them for life, including diminished
self-esteem and feelings of humiliation, alienation and lack of self-worth; d)
forced to study in racially segregated classrooms and hence deprived of the
benefits of a multi-cultural education. Finally, it is submitted that the
Government has not respected the right of the applicants to be educated in
accordance with the universally accepted philosophical ideal that everyone
should have the right to an equal education within existing educational
institutions, without any discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity. (For a
more detailed discussion of these and other related claims we respectfully
refer this Court to the section below.)
c) Violation of Article 14 taken together with
Article 2 Protocol 1
Relevant jurisprudence
IV.14. The jurisprudence of the
IV.15. We also note that the Strasbourg organs have
indicated that certain bases for distinguishing between persons in the
enjoyment of Convention rights and freedoms are so “suspect” – i.e., so
unlikely to be found proportionate to any legitimate aim – that they will
almost invariably be in violation of Article 14. Thus, this Court has reasoned
that, “[n]otwithstanding any possible arguments to the contrary, a distinction
based essentially on religion alone is not acceptable.”[65] Similarly, the Court has
indicated that the doctrine of margin of appreciation has little or no place
when it comes to distinctions based upon legitimacy,[66] nationality,[67] or sex.[68] “In view of the above,” one
commentator has opined, “it seems highly plausible that the margin of
appreciation will play little or no role in cases concerning a difference of
treatment essentially or only on the ground of race.”[69] This conclusion is bolstered by
the European Commission’s decision in East African Asians, wherein, as
discussed supra, the Commission affirmed that “a special importance should be
attached to discrimination based on race.”[70] Indeed, the Commission reasoned
that “differential treatment of a group of persons on the basis of race might
... be capable of constituting degrading treatment when differential treatment
on some other ground would raise no such question.”[71]
IV.16. Finally, in terms of the nature of Article
14, in the Belgian Linguistic case[72] the Court rejected the
proposition that a violation of a substantive article is required before an
Article 14 violation can be established. The Court observed that even “a
measure which in itself is in conformity with the requirements of the
[substantive] Article … in question may however infringe this Article when read
in conjunction with Article 14 … [f]or the reason that it is of a
discriminatory nature.”[73]
The applicants’ complaint
IV.17. In view of the above, the applicants respectfully
submit that they have been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of
race/ethnicity in the enjoyment of their right to education. Indeed, the
applicants maintain that the instant case is striking for its clarity and
relevance to the Court’s Article 14 jurisprudence.
IV.18. As to the nature of the difference in
treatment, the applicants, being pupils of Romani origin, were quite simply
treated differently in the realm of education compared to their non-Romani
peers. Initially, during the hearings, the respondents, all of them state
agents, claimed both that the plaintiffs had insufficient Croatian language
skills compared to the other students, which is why they had to be placed into
separate classes, and at the same time incredibly that the quality of education
in those very classes was just as high as the quality of education in the
classes attended by the non-Roma. Subsequently, however, the respondents
acknowledged that the education in the Roma-only classes was indeed inferior by
up to 30% and also could not contest the official documents attached to their
own submissions filed with the Čakovec Municipal Court on 31 May 2002 proving that
all of the plaintiffs in the present case had very good grades in Croatian.
When asked to explain the segregation in this light, i.e. why would then the
plaintiffs with sound Croatian language skills be placed into separate
Roma-only classes, the respondents became evasive and ultimately offered no
meaningful explanation whatsoever. Instead, they referred in abstract to the
socializing importance of “stability” and “homogeneity” of the Roma-only
classes, over and above pressing educational, psychological, and legal
requirements for an integrated/multicultural academic environment. Or in other
words, de facto, the respondents argued that initial segregation based on
race/ethnicity justifies continued segregation on the same basis.[74]
IV.19. In addition, during the oral hearings the
respondents expressly stated that over the years they have been willing to transfer
Romani students from separate Roma-only classes into an integrated environment
providing that their Croatian language skills were adequate and upon obtaining
consent from their parents. Later on, however, the respondents went on to
concede that they did not in fact take into account the plaintiffs’ Croatian
language skills or the wishes of the plaintiffs’ parents for their children to
attend racially integrated classes and did not consider the legal action filed
against the schools as a compelling expression of their will in this regard.
Moreover, in Court Mr. Branko Levačić, heard in his capacity
as the official head of Međimurje County (Župan), stated personally that “honestly
speaking” he would
not send his child to a school with a large proportion of Romani students and
would instead “exercise his constitutional right” to enroll his child into
another school where he/she would receive a better education.[75]
IV.19.a. Finally, even prior to the oral hearings,
in their submissions filed with the Čakovec Municipal Court on 31 May 2002, inter alia,
the respondents went out of their way to express their own anti-Romani
sentiments in general. Thus, they claimed that, disregarding the specifics of
the case at hand, on average Romani children are mentally inferior to their
non-Romani peers, are aggressive and lack hygiene, do not know the names of
their family members, their own age, or even their home addresses. Moreover, in
these written pleadings the respondents asserted that Romani parents themselves
are not interested in their children’s education and in separate handwritten
notes contained in one of the documents attached to the submission of the
primary school in Macinec that Romani parents are frequently alcoholics, that
their children are prone to stealing, cursing and fighting, and that as soon as
the teachers turn their backs things go missing, usually “insignificant and
useless objects - but the important thing is to steal”.[76]
IV.20. In terms of the legitimacy of the aim and/or
the proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realized
by the Croatian authorities, we respectfully submit that the facts of this case
show that the respondents’ aim was expressly illegal - i.e. to segregate the
applicants into separate classes for the Roma only and to keep them segregated,
notwithstanding the absence of any legitimate reasons/grounds for doing so. All
discussion of the issue of proportionality between such an aim and the means
employed would therefore appear to be absolutely uncalled for.
IV.21. As a result of such practices stretching back
to the very beginning of their primary education, the applicants have suffered
and continue to suffer severe educational, psychological and emotional harm. In
particular, they have a) by being subjected to a curriculum far inferior to
that in mainstream classes, sustained damage to their opportunities to secure
adequate employment in the future, b) been stigmatized with the effects of
diminished self-esteem and feelings of humiliation, alienation and lack of
self-worth, and c) been forced to study in racially/ethnically segregated
classrooms and hence denied the benefits of a multi-cultural educational
environment.
IV.22. The applicants respectfully submit that
their placement in separate classes for the Roma only stems from a blatant
practice of discrimination based on their race/ethnicity carried out by the
schools concerned, the dominating and pervasive anti-Romani sentiment of the
local non-Romani community, and ultimately the unwillingness and/or inability
of the Croatian authorities, local and national alike, to provide them with
redress as well as to abide by the relevant international and domestic legal
standards.[77]
IV.23. Finally, we note that the racial/ethnic
segregation of Romani children in Croatian primary schools is a systemic problem
verified by numerous international and domestic monitoring organizations and
comprehensively documented by Croatian Government’s own official statistics.[78]
d)
Violation of Article 6
Relevant
jurisprudence
IV.24.
Inter alia, Article 6(1) provides for a fair trial within a reasonable time in
the determination of ones “civil rights and obligations”.
IV.25.
The concept of “civil rights and obligations” has been given an autonomous
Convention interpretation by this Court which is not confined to traditional
private law rights, recognized as such in domestic law, but extends to rights
and obligations of a civil “character”.[79] In addition, for
Article 6 to apply there must be a genuine or serious dispute as to a “civil
right and obligation” that is at least “arguably” recognized in domestic law[80]
and where the proceedings at issue are determinative of that right or
obligation[81]. Thus, for example, where domestic law recognizes
the right to compensation/redress for illegal acts of the state this will
constitute a “civil” right. Indeed, this principle has been applied to a number
of claims relating to mental suffering and other forms of ill treatment deemed
degrading.[82] Finally, constitutional court proceedings have
been accepted by this Court to fall within the scope of Article 6 where their
outcome was directly or indirectly decisive for the applicant’s “civil rights
and obligations”.[83]
IV.26.
In general, the assessment of evidence is a matter left to the domestic courts.
However, this Court has stressed on a number of accessions that it will
interfere under Article 6 where there is an indication that a domestic court
has drawn a blatantly unfair or arbitrary conclusion from the evidence before
it.[84]
IV.27.
Article 6 also imposes an obligation on the domestic courts to give a reasoned
judgement. The national courts must “indicate with sufficient clarity the
grounds on which they based their judgement” so as to enable an unsuccessful
litigant to exercise any right of appeal and to maintain public confidence in
the administration of justice.[85] The extent of the duty to give
reasons varies according to the nature of the decision but in all cases
essential issues must be addressed.[86]
IV.28.
Finally, under Article 6 this Court has repeatedly underlined the “importance
of rendering justice without delays which might jeopardize its effectiveness
and credibility”.[87] In determining what constitutes a
reasonable time for the purposes of Article 6, regard must be had to the
circumstances of each case including, in particular, the complexity of the
factual or legal issues raised by the case, the conduct of the applicants and
of the state, and what is at stake for the applicant in the proceedings.[88]
Moreover, in a number of cases the Court has required “exceptional diligence”
on the part of the domestic judicial authorities. These include, inter alia,
employment matters, serious personal injury proceedings, cases concerning civil
status and capacity, as well as disputes relating to the human rights situation
of children in different contexts. Thus, in H. v. United Kingdom, a period of
two years and seven months to decide on the applicant’s right of access to her
child was found to be unreasonable:“In cases of this kind, the authorities are
under a duty to exercise exceptional diligence since … there is always the
danger that any procedural delay will result in the de facto determination of
the issue submitted to the court” before the court itself has had the chance to
decide.[89]
The applicants’ complaint
IV.29. In the present
case, the applicants requested from the competent domestic judicial authorities
to adopt: a) judicial findings of racial discrimination/segregation, of a
violation of the right to education, as well as of a violation of the right to
freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment; b) an order that the defendants
desist from future discrimination/segregation; c) an order that the defendants
develop and implement a monitoring system and a plan to end racial
discrimination/segregation and to achieve full integration; and d) an order
that the plaintiffs be placed in racially/ethnically integrated classes and
provided with the compensatory education necessary for them to overcome the
adverse effects of past discrimination/segregation.[90] Though
there may be some debate under Strasbourg jurisprudence as to whether the right
to education is indeed a civil right for the purposes of Article 6[91],
it is this Court’s
settled case law that the right to freedom from inhuman and/or degrading
treatment as well as the prohibition of discrimination in this respect are well
within the scope of Article 6.[92] In addition, as noted previously,
where domestic law recognizes the right to redress for illegal acts of the
state, as Croatian law does in the present case, this will also constitute a
“civil” right. Finally, this Court has made it patently clear that
constitutional court proceedings are also within the ambit of Article 6 if
their outcome is directly or indirectly decisive for the applicant’s “civil
rights and obligations”, as is again the case in the present matter.
IV.30.
In view of the above, the applicants submit that they have been subjected to a
determination of their civil rights in a legal procedure that has proved
fundamentally flawed and consequently in clear violation of their right to a
fair trial within a reasonable time. In particular, they raise three separate
claims: a) both the Čakovec Municipal Court and the Čakovec County
Court have ignored crucial evidence in the case before them, refused to look at
the specifics of the issue as it relates to the applicants, and have ultimately
drawn absolutely unsustainable/arbitrary conclusions; b) both courts have
subsequently failed to adopt reasoned judgements which would indicate with
sufficient clarity the grounds on which they are based and have thus undermined
the applicants’ as well as the wider public’s confidence in the administration
of justice; and c) the Constitutional Court proceedings have been delayed to
such an extent that they can no longer be considered as either an effective
domestic remedy or in compliance with the Article 6 “reasonable time”
requirement.
IV.31. More specifically, as regards the claims
under a) and b), on 26 September 2002, the Čakovec Municipal Court issued
a judgment rejecting the action filed by the applicants. Notwithstanding the de
facto admission on the part of the respondents in the course of the proceedings
and the abundance of other supporting evidence, the court failed to provide the
applicants with a remedy for the violations suffered. In its “reasoning”, inter
alia, it mostly refused to look at the specifics of the case and instead
proclaimed in general that: a) unlike non-Romani students, most Romani students
have serious Croatian language problems which makes it appropriate and legal to
place them into separate classes for the Roma only; b) for reasons of not
breaking up the “stability” and “homogeneity” of such Roma-only classes, it is
equally appropriate not to integrate even those Romani students with
sufficient Croatian language skills into racially mixed classes, and c)
amazingly, the teaching organized for the plaintiffs attending separate
Roma-only classes, due to alleged Croatian language difficulties, is itself in
no way inferior compared to the officially prescribed teaching plan and
program.[93]
IV.32. In addition, the court’s reasoning as to
whether or not the quality of education in the separate classes for the Roma
only was inferior simultaneously seems to lend support to both possible
conclusions, notwithstanding their mutually exclusive character. Similarly, the
fist instance judgment accepts both that the respondents do not deny that there
has been a departure from the prescribed teaching plan and program in the Roma
only classes compared to the other classes and at the same time incredibly that
the plaintiffs themselves have not substantiated their claim that the education
in the Roma only classes was in fact of an inferior quality. Finally, the Čakovec Municipal Court has failed
to consider the crucial evidence adduced during the oral hearings as well as to
address seriously or at all the issues of inhuman and/or degrading treatment of
the plaintiffs and their discrimination based on race, as two of the three
fundamental issues at the core of the present case. On 14 November 2002, the
applicants’ appeal was rejected and the decision of the Čakovec Municipal
Court confirmed. In so doing, the
IV.33.
In terms of the claim under c), the applicants note that the proceedings before
the
e) Violation of Article 13 taken together with
Article 3, Article 2 Protocol 1, Article 6 and Article 14
Relevant jurisprudence
IV.34. Article 13 requires an effective domestic
remedy whenever an applicant has an arguable claim that he or she has been
subjected to a violation of another Convention right. However, there is no need
for a breach of the substantive right itself to be established in order for a
violation of Article 13 to be made out.[96] Also, Article 13 does not
require that the applicant always win. Rather, there must be a remedy which is
capable of being granted and sufficient of redressing the violation complained
of.[97] The action required under Article 13 “must be effective
in practice as well as in law, particularly in so far as its existence must not
be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the
respondent State”.[98] Finally, in Kudla v.
The applicants’ complaint
IV.35. The applicants submit that they have been
denied an effective remedy by the competent Croatian authorities in relation to
their freedom from degrading treatment, their right to education, their right
to a fair trial within a reasonable time, and their right to non-discrimination
in the enjoyment of all of the above rights and freedoms.
IV.36. The facts of the case speak for themselves.
First, the applicants have produced a compelling case on its face. Second, they
have turned to the Croatian courts for redress. Third, they obtained no remedy
for the violations suffered. Fourth, it has become obvious that there is no
effective domestic remedy with respect to their particular case, as well as
other similar cases, because even should the
IV.37. All of the above, we submit, amounts to a
violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3, Article 2 Protocol 1,
Article 6 and Article 14. It is also in breach of this Court’s fundamental
holding that domestic remedies need to be practical and effective rather than
theoretical and illusory.[100]
f) Discrimination/segregation of Romani children
in Croatian schools as documented by international and domestic monitoring
organizations
IV.38. The applicants respectfully submit that the
above-alleged violations of the Convention and of Protocol 1 to the Convention
ought to be considered in the light of widespread discrimination/segregation of
Romani children in Croatian schools, as documented by numerous international
and domestic monitoring organizations.
With respect to the instant case
IV.39. The present case has been cited by the OSCE,
the International Helsinki Commission, and the United States Department of
State as evidence of school segregation in
IV.40. In its annual report, the International
Helsinki Federation stated: “In a joint action with the European Roma Rights Center
(ERRC, IHF cooperating committee), the CHC established that in the County of
Međimurje, where the majority of the Roma population lives, there were
elementary schools in which Roma children attended so-called “clean” Roma
classes. The CHC and the ERRC sent several letters to the responsible
authorities asking them to abolish such segregation. These were, however,
unsuccessful. Therefore, the CHC decided to use all legal remedies to force a
decision to dismiss such classes and to introduce special curricula for those
children who have difficulties in learning Croatian and who show a lack of
general knowledge.”[103]
IV.41. At the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation
Meeting of 2002, the International Helsinki Federation stated:“In May, 57
families of Roma children in Međimurje county, Croatia, filed a
legal complaint with a Croatian court challenging the segregation of Roma
pupils into separate Roma-only classes in four otherwise “normal” primary
schools Orehovica, Macinec, Kuršanec and Podturen. The Roma classes are
educationally inferior and therefore disadvantageous for later employment or
further education. As a result of this practice, the plaintiffs, like many
other Roma children throughout
IV.42. The IHF later speculated on the legitimacy
of the county and municipal court rulings in Čakovec, noting that the
courts “declared the complaint inadmissible in record time. The
promptness of this response was extraordinary considering the fact that the
average length of a court procedure in
IV.43. Local Croatian media ardently opposes school
integration and reacted with intense negativity to the legal proceedings.
On 23 April 2002, the weekly Međimurje published the following: “Unsatisfied Roma people should be loaded onto a
train of no return … My fellow
citizens, do not quarrel with the Croatian Helsinki Committee and its president
Žarko Puhovski, who has been ‘inciting’ Roma in Međimurje to act against
schools, the municipality, the city, the county and the state authorities. Why?
Because we shall need them in a year or two ourselves, very soon. Namely, in order
to protect us from the Roma, as we will very soon become a minority in
Međimurje. It seems that Roma children do not wish to learn Croatian in
mixed classes from little ‘civilians’ but exactly the contrary: they wish to
teach little Croats the Roma language … What happens here is assimilation. In a
few years time, my neighbor will say ‘blood will prevail and all of us will
become Gypsies’ … And we, people in Međimurje, goodhearted as we are, gave
them everything, and more than that … For it is a common fact that it’s always
lazy, indolent people and hooligans who complain, who blame others for their
own misfortunes … Perhaps, it would be good to ensure ‘a train of no return’ on
which they would be put together with their families. And then they should
decide for themselves and choose for themselves the train station at which they
would get off … However, I fear that if the situation continues as it is,
we will have to get on this train ourselves, because everything they do to us
has exceeded the limit of tolerance.”[106]
IV.44. Finally, the Report on Activities of the
Croatian Ombudsman for year 2000 focused on the state of segregation in
Međimurje and the government’s continued inaction: “Due to discrimination,
which several schools in Međimurje carry out in the form of segregation
under the excuse that Romani children do not have a minimum of hygienic habits
and do not know enough Croatian, Romani children often perceive school as a
place of unpleasant occurrences and experiences … Although the problem is publicly
known, corresponding action by the authority is absent. Quite frequently,
justification is given with the claim that the segregation of Romani children
is for their own good as they attend smaller classes and class teachers can
therefore pay more attention to them. However, the fact that the curriculum for
Romani children in such “pure” classes is based on a special programme, devised
for children with developmental disorders, is concealed. Naturally, after two
to three years of such education, even exceptional children find it very hard
to compensate for what they have missed and to catch up with their peers who
were not educated under the so-called special programme. Such a situation,
which is utterly unacceptable from both a moral and pedagogical standpoint, is
not only tolerated, but is also approved by the school authorities …”[107]
IV.45. The IHF subsequently referred to the same
government inaction, and it’s justification of segregation that “Roma children did not speak the Croatian
language and have bad hygiene practices.” The IHF noted that, despite the
government’s words, it is “evident that the authorities had not made any
efforts to organize Croat language classes for those Roma pre-school children
who did not speak Croatian.”[108]
The overall situation as regards the segregation Romani
children in education
IV.46. The Council of Europe and the United Nations
have highlighted the problem of segregation between Roma and non-Roma students
in countries across Europe, including
IV.47.
IV.48. As early as 1993, the OSCE High Commissioner
on National Minorities recommended that the Croatian government devise and
implement “special polices for addressing certain Roma-related issues in such
areas as … education.”[111] A decade later, “international and local NGOs remain[ed]
concerned about the practice of holding separate classes … for Roma students in
northern
IV.49. Indeed, few Romani children in
IV.50. The Advisory Committee on the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities noted that it is “highly
concerned about reports that in certain schools, Roma children are placed in
separate classes and school facilities are organized and operated in a manner
that appears to stigmatize Roma pupils.”
IV.51. The Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) referred to Croatia when stating: “Romani children
are schooled in racially segregated school facilities or arrangements,
including schools or classes for the mentally disabled, schools or classes
separated explicitly on grounds of race or ethnicity, special arrangements
whereby Romani children are excused from regular school attendance and/or
schools which are segregated as a result of their location in a ghetto or
similarly excluded Romani settlement.”[114]
IV.52. In
IV.53. Two years later the IHF reported no change
in the situation, stating, “[d]iscrimination and harassment against Roma
continued … Roma faced a host of obstacles, including … lack of education.”[119]
IV.54. The IHF has appealed to the Croatian
authorities to abolish segregated education, “place the plaintiffs in racially
integrated classrooms, and to provide them with the compensatory education
necessary for them to overcome the debilitating effects of past
discrimination”. It has also requested from the government “to develop and
implement a monitoring system and a plan to end racial segregation and
discrimination in all schools.”[120]
IV.55. In addition, UN treaty bodies have
repeatedly expressed concerns about the state of school segregation in
IV.56. The Committee for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination (CERD) also expressed concern at the “continued practice of
segregation of Roma children within the educational system." The Committee
recommended that
Other forms of discrimination of Romani children in
education
IV.57. Besides segregation as discrimination, Roma
children in
IV.58. This discrimination takes many forms: “There
was some discrimination against minorities in schools. For example, textbooks
have used derogatory adjectives in reference to minorities. Previous Government
pledges to provide more balanced textbooks went unfulfilled.”[126] The UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) also reported that “curriculum and
textbooks used in schools contain derogatory references to minority groups.”[127] Moreover, “Roma children in schools played separately from
non-Roma children, and Roma parents complained that their children had been
subjected to verbal and physical abuse.”[128] Roma
children are also subjected to official intolerance. In reference to the
present case the IHF noted, “[t]he disadvantaged situation of the Roma
community in Medjimurje was additionally burdened by intolerant statements
issued by county officials towards Roma.”[129]
Inadequate official action aimed at educational
desegregation
IV.59. The Croatian government is aware of the
level of segregation in it’s schools between Roma and non-Roma children, yet it
has been woefully inactive in taking steps to remedy the problem. In
1998, the Croatian government adopted a “Programme of Integration of Roma
Children in the Educational and School System.” While the Advisory Committee
on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities noted
that the Programme contained “useful ideas” it criticized the text as “cursory
in nature.” Evaluating the situation in 2002, the Committee
considered that “
IV.60. Five years after the Programme of
Integration of Roma Children was adopted, the government of
IV.61. For its part, the ERRC also considers
certain sections of this policy document to be extremely problematic. In
particular, although educational “desegregation” is among the stated goals of
this document, subsequent programmatic paragraphs do not set out a
comprehensive plan in this regard. For example, when discussing the
organization of classes, the plan merely states that “for Roma children who
were included in pre-school programs and/or speak the Croatian language well,
mixed classes are organised" and that "for Roma children who were not
included in preschool programs and/or do not know sufficient Croatian, separate
classes will be organized …” In addition, the document is silent on the issue
of what is to befall such children following the first grade of elementary
school and when -- if ever -- they are to be integrated in mainstream classes.
It similarly includes no provisions for integrating children already attending
racially segregated classes.
V. ARTICLE 35(1) OF THE CONVENTION
V.1. In view of the above, we submit that the applicants
have made use of all available domestic remedies with respect to the violations
at issue. [134] In particular, they filed an Article
67 action under the Administrative Disputes Act, appealed the first instance
decision with the higher court, and ultimately, having no other legal recourse
at their disposal, lodged a complaint with the
V.2. Under its existing
case law, however, it was unclear as to whether the Constitutional Court would
accept jurisdiction. When the applicants filed their complaint they still
believed that the Constitutional Court may prove to be an effective remedy that
needs to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention.
However, in view of the lack of clarity as to the court’s jurisdiction, it was
quite possible that the Constitutional Court could have decided, and indeed may
yet decide, that it has no competence to rule in respect of the subject matter
complained of in which case the six-month time limit for the submission of a
Strasbourg application would start running as of the final decision in the effective remedy
pursued - i.e. the decision of the Čakovec County Court
dated 14 November 2002. Therefore, and in view of the possibility of such an
outcome, on 8 May 2003, the applicants lodged a pre-application letter with this Court thereby
preserving their right
to submit an individual application and making sure that they can do
so within the time limit prescribed by the Convention.
V.3. More than two years
after the submission of the applicants' complaint with the Constitutional
Court, however, this forum is yet to take any action whatsoever. It has
therefore become obvious that the constitutional complaint filed in the present
case is not an effective domestic remedy because even should the Constitutional
Court now rule in favor of the applicants it could only quash the judgments of
the lower courts and send the case back for a retrial before the Čakovec
Municipal Court. This would mean that the entire litigation cycle would
re-commence, take many additional years to complete, and would in effect have
the result of sealing the fate of the applicants regardless of the ultimate
legal outcome. Or in other words, the Croatian authorities have failed to
secure that the present case involving children as applicants, as well as
immensly high stakes, i.e. the applicants' very ability to lead a productive
life and integrate into Croatian society, be dealt with due diligence which in
turn has lead to an out of court de facto determination/rejection of the
applicants' claims, before the domestic courts have had the chance to give
their final say.
V.4. In this regard, we note that this Court and
the former Commission have already recognized that the speed of the domestic
procedure as well as what is at stake for the applicant is highly relevant to
whether a given remedy is to be deemed effective and hence necessary to exhaust
in terms of Article 35(1) of the Convention.[135] In Mitap v.
V.5. Therefore, we respectfully submit that the
time has come for this Court to consider the present case without waiting for
the decision of the
VI. OBJECTIVE OF THE APPLICATION
The objective of the application is to find the Croatian
Government in breach of a number of rights guaranteed by the
Convention and its Protocols - in particular, of Article 3, Article 2 Protocol
1, Article 14 taken together with Article 2 Protocol 1, Article 6, as well as
Article 13 taken together with Article 3, Article 2 Protocol 1, Article 6 and
Article 14, and for
the applicants to obtain comprehensive redress including just compensation.
VII. OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDINGS
This matter has not been and is not being examined under
any other procedure of international investigation or settlement.
VIII. LIST OF DOCUMENTS (EXHIBITS)
1)
Action
filed by the applicants with the Čakovec Municipal Court on 19 April 2002.
2)
The applicants’ Croatian language
grades in school year 2001/2002, as officially confirmed by the respondent
primary schools.
3)
Official data provided by the
Office of Education, Culture, Information, Sport and Technical Culture of the
4)
Official data provided by the
Office of Education, Culture, Information, Sport and Technical Culture of the
5)
Six
separate submissions filed by the respondents with the Čakovec Municipal
Court dated 7 May 2002. (Labeled 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F. Exhibit labeled 5G
is one of the documents attached by the primary school in Macinec to their
submission here labeled as exhibit 5B.)
6)
Submission
filed by the applicants with the Čakovec Municipal Court of 26 June 2002.
7)
Transcript
of the oral hearing before the Čakovec Municipal Court held on 24
September 2002.
8)
Transcript
of the oral hearing before the Čakovec Municipal Court held on 25
September 2002.
9)
Transcript
of the oral hearing before the Čakovec Municipal Court held on 26
September 2002.
10)
Judgment
adopted by the Čakovec Municipal Court on 26 September 2002.
11)
Appeal
filed by the applicants with the Čakovec County Court of 17 October 2002.
12)
Submission
filed by the respondents with the
13)
Judgment
of the
14)
Constitutional
complaint filed by the applicants on 19 December 2002.
15)
Subsequent
submission filed by the applicants with the
16)
ERRC
letter sent to the Croatian Prime Minister dated 1 July 2002.
17)
ERRC
letter sent to the Croatian Minister of Education of 23 September 2002.
18)
ERRC
press release dated 14 October 2003.
19)
Joint
ERRC and CHC letter sent to Croatian Minister of Education dated 28 October
2004.
20)
Croatian
Government’s Program of Integration of Romani Children in the Educational and
School System of the
IX. PREFERRED
LANGUAGE
English
X. DECLARATION AND SIGNATURE
The applicants hereby declare that, to the best of their
knowledge and belief, the information given in this application is true and
correct.
Lovorka Kušan
Attorney-at-law
Branimir Pleše
Legal Director
Žarko Puhovski
President
Croatian