Refusal to enrol a blind student in a music academy violated the Convention

In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Çam v. Turkey (application no. 51500/08) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights
in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the Convention.
The case concerned a refusal to enrol Ms Çam as a student at the Turkish National Music Academy because she was blind.
The Court found in particular that Ms Çam’s exclusion had been based on the music academy’s rules of procedure. Although Ms Çam was completely qualified for admission to the academy, the refusal to enrol her had been based solely on the fact that she was blind. Furthermore, the Court considered that the discrimination on grounds of disability also extended to the refusal to make reasonable accommodation to facilitate access by persons with disabilities to education. Such accommodation was vital for the exercise of human rights. By refusing to enrol Ms Çam without considering the possibility of accommodating her disability, the national authorities had prevented her, without any objective and reasonable justification, from benefiting from a musical education, in breach of the Convention.

The authorities failed in their obligation to protect the life of a woman who had been genuinely and seriously threatened by her husband

In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Civek v. Turkey (application no. 55354/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the murder of the applicants’ mother, Selma Civek, by their father. The Court found, in particular, that even though the Turkish authorities had been informed of the genuine and serious threat to Ms Civek’s life and despite her continued complaints of threats and
harassment, they had failed to take the measures reasonably available to them in order to prevent her being murdered by her husband.

Monitoring of an employee’s use of the Internet and his resulting dismissal was justified
 
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Bărbulescu v. Romania (application no. 61496/08) the European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that there had been:
no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned Mr Bărbulescu’s dismissal by his employer, a private company, for having used the company’s Internet for personal purposes during working hours in breach of internal regulations.
The Court found, in particular, that Mr Bărbulescu’s private life and correspondence had been engaged. However his employer’s monitoring of his communications had been reasonable in the context of disciplinary proceedings.

Switzerland was under no obligation to recognise the marriage of a 14-year old child
 
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Z. H. and R. H. v. Switzerland (application no. 60119/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the asylum applications of two Afghan nationals, Ms. Z.H. and Mr. R.H., who married in a religious ceremony in Iran when Ms Z.H. had been a child, and which were considered separately – the couple not being considered legally married by the Swiss authorities – resulting in the expulsion of Mr R.H. to Italy. In the proceedings before the European Court, the couple alleged that the expulsion of Mr R.H. had breached their right to respect for their family life.
The Court found that at the time of the removal of Mr R.H. to Italy, the Swiss authorities had been justified in considering that the applicants were not married. It held, in particular, that Switzerland was under no obligation to recognise the marriage of a child, emphasising the importance of the protection of children and considering the regulation of marriage an issue best addressed by the national courts.