Botta v. Italy
From DADEL
Case Summary
Botta v. Italy
European Court of Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 21439/93
Judgment of 24 February 1998
The applicant, an Italian national, Mr. Maurizio Botta, claimed to be a victim of violation by Italy of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
Contents |
Facts
Mr Botta is physically disabled. While on holiday at the seaside resort of Lido degli Estensi (Commachio, Ferrara province) in August 1990, he discovered that the bathing establishments were not equipped with the facilities to allow people with disabilities to access the beach and the sea. Specifically, the resort lacked special access ramps, lavatories, and washrooms in breach of Italian legislation. In March 1991, Mr. Botta asked the mayor of Commachio to remedy these shortcomings and when he returned to Lido degli Estensi later in 1991, he found no changes.
In August 1991, the Applicant lodged a complaint against the Minister for Merchant shipping, the Ravenna harbour-mastor, as well as the mayor of Commachio. He alleged that their failure to require the private beaches to install facilities for people with disabilities was an omission of their official duty. In May 1992, the local prosecutor’s office and district court discontinued the proceedings. Mr. Botta applied to the Commission in July 1992. He claimed the impairment of his private life and development of his personality resulting from the Italian State’s failure to remedy the omissions at the private bathing establishments of Lido degli Estensi.
Admissibility
The Application was found admissible.
Merits
The Court held that while the essential object of Article 8 of the Convention is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities, the Article also may obligate those authorities to take affirmative steps to secure the respect for private life. These affirmative measures may take the form of regulating private conduct. A State has obligations of this type where there is a direct and immediate link between the affirmative measures sought and the Applicant’s private or family life. In the instant matter, the Court held that there was no such direct link between the two because the Applicant was on vacation far from home. The Court reasoned that access to a distant beach had little to do with respect for his private life. After holding that Article 8 of the Convention did not apply, the Court also held that Article 14 did not apply.
Decision
The Court held that Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention were not applicable.