7823/77 7824/77

Applicant name 48 KALDERAS GIPSIES
Applicant type Group
Country Germany & Netherlands
Decision no.7823/77 7824/77
Institution Commission
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason No interference
Type of privacy Family privacy
Keywords Birth certificate
Facts of the case Group of Gypsies claims to be expelled by the Netherlands and is now located in Cologne. They complain of a variety of interferences with their Convention rights.
Analysis The Commission underlines that there is no right as such in the Convention to obtain identity papers, but the Commission accepts, in the special circumstances of this case and considering that the applicants are nomads and have other ethnical peculiarities, that questions might arise under Articles 3 and 14 of the Conventon concerning the respect for their human dignity and concerning their treatment. However, the claimants have not exhausted all domestic remedies on this point.
As to their complaint that the authorities of the Netherlands had illegally forced them to leave the country and that this treatment was degrading and discriminatory in violation of Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention, they have produced insufficient evidence.
The Commission considers that the failure to issue a birth certificate may imply an interference with the right to respect for family life, but finds that in this case, the birth certificate in fact was available. Although the father is notmentioned in the certificate, the reason being that the formalities of the Marriage Act have not been observed by the parents, that factor does not, however, bar the child later on from marrying. With regard to this complaint, applicants invoke both Article 8 and 12, but the Commission makes no determination as to under which provision their claim would, instead finding that there had been no interference in any case.
The case is interesting in particular as the Court now has as official doctrine that groups are not allowed to submit an application as a group (e.g. a Roma or Jewish community claiming to be stigmatised as group), but only that several individuals that all have been harmed by the same interference can bundle their complaints. This case, the Commission seems to have found all 48 applicants admissible, but decides on some complaints that only concern some of them. It is unsure whether it is treating the group as group or as an aggregate of individuals.
Documents Decision