The European Court of Human Rights recently issued an important ruling on the school segregation of Roma students.

The case concerns the prevalent placement of the latter in different primary schools and classes than those attended by ethnic Macedonian students, even though the different schools belonged to the same catchment area.

The two joined appeals concern 87 citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, of Roma origin, born between 1958 and 2013, pupils at two State primary schools in Bitola and Shtip (North Macedonia) and their parents.

 

The ground of the first action concerns the fact that pupils of Roma origin in Bitola were deprived of access to the neighboring school of their choice or, in some cases, transferred, with the result that a de facto Roma school was created, with 80 percent of the pupils enrolled in that school being of Roma origin. Furthermore, in that school, ethnic Macedonian children were placed in separate classes, with the complained consequence of Roma children receiving an inferior education.

The second action concerns the school in Shtip, where, during the school years 2017-19, the applicants were allegedly placed in Roma-only classes, separated from their peers, leading to a deprivation of the same opportunities as non-Roma pupils regarding their future education, employment, and integration into society.

In both cases, the applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court of North Macedonia. With regard to Bitola, the Court ruled that, although it could be considered that the children attended ethnically diverse schools, as 83.5 percent of the pupils in one school were Roma and, in the other school, 95.1 percent of the pupils were ethnic Macedonians, this situation could not be considered the result of segregation, as no specific evidence was presented that would lead to such a conclusion, and, therefore, dismissed the complaint.

Regarding Shtip, the appeal to the Constitutional Court was also dismissed, as, in that case too, the Court held that the allegations of segregation had to be supported by relevant facts and evidence that made the claim at least plausible, as the representation of the ethnic composition of classes does not prove discrimination.

 

The Strasbourg Court, recalling its previous case law (D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic, Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, Lavida and Others v. Greece), has, on the other hand, held that discrimination contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights can also result from a factual situation. Moreover, the vulnerable situation of the Roma community implies special consideration of their needs and their different way of life, both in legislation and in the adoption of concrete decisions by the competent administrations.

Therefore, it is primarily up to the State party to take positive and effective measures to correct the de facto inequality of the applicants and to prevent the perpetuation of the discrimination resulting from their over-representation in schools, thus breaking the circle of marginalization and enabling them to live as equal citizens from the earliest stages of their lives.

In the present cases, the Court held that such measures had not been taken and that, consequently, there had been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2P1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ruling appears to be of relevance, since, like the earlier X et al. v. Albania, it marks a turning point in the Court's assessment of segregation in education, both in terms of the requirements necessary for considering a situation of segregation as discriminatory, and in terms of its focus on the measures necessary to overcome it.

 

(Comment by Nadia Spadaro)