CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mai 2024

.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 } Published on 10 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 26133/22 M.S.M. against Romania lodged on 10 May 2022 communicated on 21 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns, in the context of social benefits for invalidity, the appeal against the administrative decision of 4 March 2020, by which the applicant was considered as having an invalidity triggering the loss of his work capacity and requiring to be re-evaluated in three years’ time. It was on this last point, in particular, that the applicant challenged the decision, alleging that his medical condition could not objectively improve, so that the requirement for a re-evaluation in three years was abusive. According to a medical report of 10 August 2020, drawn up by a medical expert of the public social security, the applicant is suffering mainly from “mixed dementia”, “mixed encephalopathy”, sequels from stroke, recurring depressive disorder and severe coxarthrosis after his leg injury (ill-consolidated broken femur) by gunfire (in December 1989, during the violent events leading to the change of the totalitarian regime). No response was provided by the Medical Appeals Commission within the legally prescribed deadline of 45 days (as provided for in Article 71 § 8 of Law no.   263/2010). Subsequently, the applicant challenged the above-mentioned administrative decision before the domestic courts. His request was dismissed by final decision of 9 March 2022, of the Court of Appeal of Timișoara, on the grounds that he could not directly challenge the administrative decision before the domestic courts, in the absence of a response from the Medical Appeals Commission. Under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the failure of the Medical Appeals Commission to issue a response to his challenge, followed by an alleged lack of access to justice and of an effective remedy. He underlines, in this respect, that the Court of Appeal dismissed his action because there was no prior response of the administrative authority, which was not imputable to him. Invoking Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   8, the applicant alleges that he was discriminated and despised by the domestic authorities because of his illness and invalidity. He also complains that the domestic authorities, without an objective and reasonable justification, failed to treat him differently vis-à-vis persons whose invalidity was reversible and needed re-evaluation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his illness and invalidity, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?   In particular, when assessing the requirement of having his invalidity re ‑ evaluated in three years’ time, did the domestic authorities fail to treat the applicant differently from persons whose situations were significantly different, namely persons suffering from a reversible invalidity (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV, and Guberina v. Croatia , no. 23682/13, §§   66-87, 22 March 2016)? If so, was there an objective and reasonable justification for the domestic authorities’ attitude?