CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 18 February 2021 Published on 8 March 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 24326/19 Luminița STOIAN against Romania lodged on 22 April 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of discrimination by the State authorities against the applicant on account of her child’s disability. She is the mother of a physically disabled child who moves around with the use of a wheelchair (for details, see Stoian v. Romania [Committee], no.   289/14, 25   June 2019). She complains that, during a train trip she took with her son, they have both been discriminated against, as the train company sold them tickets and allowed them to make the train trip although it was unable to offer them adequate services on an equal basis with those it offered to the other travellers (notably, accessibility to and inside the train including access to facilities). She argues that, while the domestic courts recognised that her son had been discriminated against and granted him compensation, they failed to acknowledge that she had also incurred damage, as a person accompanying and caring for a disabled child, because of the stressful situation, the tremendous physical effort she had to make with taking her son in and out of the train and moving around the train, and with improvising devices to replace the toilets which were inaccessible to him (final decision of 5 March 2020 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice).     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant suffered discrimination on account of the disability of her child, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, considering the dismissal (by means of the final decision of 5   March 2020 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice) of her claim for compensation for the harm caused by the lack of adequate services offered to them by the railway company (see, notably, Guberina v. Croatia , no.   23682/13, §§   76 ‑ 79, 22   March 2016, and Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no.   20452/14, §   134, 19   December 2018)?