8.  The applicants were born in 2001 and 1967 respectively and live in Bucharest. 9.  The first applicant is the second applicant’s son. 10.  The first applicant has spastic quadriplegia, a medical condition characterised by impaired function in the limbs but which does not affect his mental capacities. From the age of one, he was registered as having a severe disability (grad de handicap sever) requiring a personal assistant. 11.  Owing to his disability, the first applicant has undergone complex and ongoing medical treatment aimed at maintaining the mobility of his limbs and compensating for abnormalities in muscle tone. He has undergone regular surgery, has been admitted on several occasions to rehabilitation clinics in Romania and Ukraine, has undergone neurological and orthopaedic tests in Israel and is under constant physiotherapy. He relies on assistive devices to walk, including electric wheelchairs, mopeds and tricycles. His health is monitored at M.C. Children’s Hospital in Bucharest. In January 2011 the first applicant underwent significant surgical interventions which left him wheelchair-bound. 12.  The second applicant is a single parent and sole breadwinner. 13.  When the first applicant reached school age, the authorities assessed his situation and recommended that he attend a mainstream school (report of 25 October 2007, see paragraph 35 below). The recommendation was maintained in all subsequent assessments. 14.  On 8 February 2013 the Bucharest Directorate General for Social Welfare and Child Protection (Direcţia Generală de Asistenţă Socială şi Protecţia Copilului, “the child protection authority”) drafted a plan for the first applicant’s physical rehabilitation. It listed the rights provided for by law, such as the right to special allowances, free public transport, parking in spaces reserved for people with disabilities, physiotherapy, and special arrangements at school such as a specially adapted curriculum and methods of testing, appropriate physical education, appropriate facilities in the school building to ensure accessibility, and assistance from a school nurse. It recommended that a personal assistant be hired by its Human Resources Department and that the accessibility of public infrastructure be improved (accessibility of kerbs, pedestrian crossings and pathways, public transport stations and parks). 15.  The first applicant attended several schools:
(a)  In 2004 the first applicant was enrolled in nursery school but, according to the second applicant, he was forced to leave after only three days, when the school manager informed the mother that her institution “[did] not do handicap”.
(b)  From 2007 to April 2013 the first applicant attended classes at school no. 131, a mainstream educational facility for primary and secondary education (children aged six to fourteen). The school building was located sixty metres from the applicants’ home. The applicants argued that the school did not offer adequate conditions despite the authorities’ reassurance and the applicants’ continuous efforts.
(c)  In the academic year 2013/14 the first applicant attended school no. 148 where, according to the applicants’ submissions, the conditions and the support were acceptable.
(d)  In October 2015 he started classes in “Mihai Eminescu” High School (“M.E. School”) where he remained until 2017. The applicants complained about the conditions in this school.
(e) On 30 August 2017 the first applicant moved to a private school for the second-last year of high school. In April 2018, the date of the latest communication to the Court from the applicants, he was still attending this school. 16.  The applicants’ description of the situation concerns the academic years 2011/12 and 2012/13. When the first applicant started school, the school building had no facilities for disabled students. A new gate had to be pierced in the fence facing the street where the applicants lived and a concrete strip was laid leading to the students’ entrance in the main building. The toilets were not equipped for disabled children and a cubicle was improvised in the girls’ toilet on the first floor. Later, in 2013, a special toilet on the ground floor was equipped for the needs of children with disabilities, but the first applicant still required support when using it. The sports facilities were not adapted for the use of disabled children and the first applicant could neither take part in class sports activities nor do the exercises recommended by his physicians in order to help with his muscle tone. 17.  The second applicant alleged that, at her own expense, she had arranged for small adjustments to be made to the classroom and toilet, such as rails on the walls, to facilitate her son’s movements. 18.  Because there were no access ramps in the school, the first applicant could not on his own reach the upper floors of the building, where some important facilities were located such as the doctor’s office, the psychologist’s office, the laboratories and the after-school care facilities. The second applicant had to spend significant amounts of time at the school carrying him and the walking devices to the upper floors, and helping him go to the toilet, do the mandatory physical exercise recommended by his physicians and carry his school books, lunchbox and other items. In the first applicant’s first four years at school, in addition to his mother’s support, his classmates or the school staff also helped him with some of these tasks. 19.  The absence of adequate medical personnel at the school and the lack of access to medical facilities during school hours contributed to the worsening of the first applicant’s physical condition. The benefits he gained from surgery were lost and he became less autonomous and more reliant on support from others. 20.  Because of the lack of accessibility of public buildings, the first applicant could not be included in some of the school activities, such as outings. No alternative activities were provided for him. The second applicant’s attempts to have extracurricular activities arranged for her son remained futile; for example, although the child was admitted to piano lessons, the building housing the piano club was inaccessible to wheelchairs. 21.  In time the situation generated tensions between, on the one hand, the applicants and, on the other hand, the school staff, the other children and their parents.
(b)  M.E. School 22.  According to the applicants, the school building was not adapted for the needs of children with disabilities and its premises remained mostly inaccessible. In the absence of any support in school, the second applicant had to physically carry her son on a daily basis around the school building and to the upper floors where the science laboratory and the gym were situated. The school also failed to provide for his basic needs such as personal and intimate care, feeding and moving around. He was often abandoned unassisted in the school corridors. 23.  The applicants submitted that during the first applicant’s stay in M.E. School, the authorities had failed to devise and implement an individualised educational plan. The teaching, testing and curriculum had not been adapted to his situation and some of the school teachers had openly refused to adapt their routine to his needs or had asked that he be sent to a special school, an attitude which had been tolerated by the school administration. 24.  Based on the information provided by the management of school no. 131 and the local administration, the Government gave a different account of the situation. They explained that from the time of his enrolment in the school, the needs of the first applicant had always been taken into account. 25.  In September 2008 the school administration contacted the Bucharest Schools Inspectorate (Inspectoratul Şcolar al Municipiului Bucureşti, “the ISMB”), in order to seek financial help to adapt the school premises to the first applicant’s needs. 26.  During 2012 and 2013 the school buildings were rendered more accessible to wheelchairs. In particular, an access ramp was installed; one toilet cubicle was equipped with an alarm bell linked directly to the school secretariat; the yard was asphalted; the nurse’s office was moved to the ground floor, next to the first applicant’s classroom; the first applicant was provided with specially adapted desks in the classroom; and an air-conditioning unit was placed in the classroom. 27.  On 7 April 2014 an ISMB internal audit concluded, after verifying the school documents, that the entire cost of the work had been met from the school’s budget. 28.  The first applicant was able to use the toilet facilities but because of the deterioration of his general health he was sometimes unable to reach the toilets on time. The school personnel helped with all aspects of his personal and intimate care and offered fresh clothes when his mother did not want to provide clean changes. 29.  The child did not return to school after 3 April 2013 (see paragraph 69 below). From the official documents it appears that from 7 to 24 May 2013 the first applicant received medical treatment in Băile Felix Hospital and attended classes in the nearby Oradea School Centre for Inclusive Education. According to the Government, the second applicant did not inform the administration of school no. 131 about this situation and continued to complain that she and her son were being denied access to the school premises.
(b)  M.E. School 30.  Starting with the 2015/16 school year the first applicant attended classes in M.E. School. At that time, the building was partially accessible: it was equipped with an access ramp, had classrooms on the ground floor, and had access in the yard for a specially adapted car. 31.  On 9 September 2015, as soon as it was informed of the first applicant’s transfer, the M.E. School administration asked the local authorities for help in installing an accessible toilet and a lift, acquiring a computer with specially adapted software, and creating a medical office and a library on the ground floor. 32.  According to the information provided by the authorities, in March 2016 the school building had two access ramps, two reserved parking places for people with disabilities, a classroom on the ground floor, and a specially adapted desk in the first applicant’s classroom. 33.  The school was unable to negotiate the acquisition of a lift during the 2015/16 school year. According to the information presented by the local authorities, the second applicant refused several options proposed to her. Eventually, the school administration managed to purchase a stairlift which was installed on 21 November 2016. On the same day the school personnel were trained in how to operate it. 34.  On several occasions the second applicant brought her son into school without a wheelchair by carrying him on her back (on 3-5 February and on 3 and 18 March 2016) and left him without any means of moving around the school premises. According to the Government, at that time the school was accessible with a wheelchair, the first applicant had a specially adapted desk in his classroom and his transport to and from school was taken care of by the foundation “Motivation”. On other occasions the second applicant refused to let the child stay in school as he did not have a personal assistant. 35.  On 25 October 2007 the child protection authority recommended that the first applicant attend classes in school no. 131 and be given the assistance of a support teacher (professor de sprijin). The recommendation was reiterated on 25 August 2011 in relation to secondary education. 36.  The school adapted the timetable and testing methods to the first applicant’s needs. The child was entitled to a 50% increase in the time allotted for written exams and was partly exempted from attending school. In addition, the school offered the first applicant the possibility to attend classes via Skype during periods when he needed to be away from school for medical reasons. 37.  From 22 September 2015 M.A. was assigned as a support teacher for the first applicant. On 7 December 2015 M.A. drafted a personal intervention plan detailing the subjects that the first applicant would take in school and the specially adapted teaching methods. On the same day M.A. informed her superiors of the difficulties she had with the second applicant, who had asked her not to work with her son and had tried to dictate to her which subjects to exclude from her son’s curriculum. 38.  On 11 December 2015 M.A. was replaced by D.C., who on 4 March 2016 presented a new intervention plan which was accepted by the majority of the first applicant’s teachers. D.C. continued to assist the first applicant in the school year 2016/17, and on 15 September 2016 drafted a new intervention plan which was accepted by most of the teachers. According to the documents in the file, the second applicant refused any communication with D.C. and did not participate in any of the meetings organised by D.C. with the school staff in order to discuss the first applicant’s development and needs. 39.  After the adoption of decision no. 913 of 25 July 2016 (see paragraph 63 below), the authorities put in place a system for providing the first applicant with support and assistance in school. Specifically, in September 2016 the child protection authority designated for this task several professionals working in a centre for abused children who had experience in working with children. According to the Government, they encountered difficulties with the second applicant, who on occasions refused to leave the child at school, refused to explain the reason for his absence or verbally abused the representatives of the child protection authority. 40.  The first applicant did not attend school daily and was absent on several occasions, sometimes for long periods of time. He also attended other schools in the towns where he was hospitalised for treatment or rehabilitation. According to the report drafted by the support teacher, the first applicant’s long absences from school, as well as the second applicant’s attitude, had a negative impact on the first applicant’s education. 41.  The first applicant’s physicians set out recommendations for the school and other authorities regarding the child’s medical needs, emphasising the importance of regular physiotherapy and occupational therapy, including during school hours. They advised against keeping the patient in the same position for long periods of time, as that could cause muscle rigidity and discomfort, thus compromising his rehabilitation and, in time, leading to deformities. They recommended that the child alternate periodically between sitting and standing up. 42.  In November 2012 a physiotherapist was assigned to come to the school to work with the first applicant, and the school reserved a space in the gym room for the physiotherapy sessions. During the second term of the 2012/13 school year, the physiotherapist and the first applicant met for three sessions of one hour each. 43.  At the beginning of the 2011/12 school year the school requested that it be provided with a physiotherapist, a nurse and a medical assistant. 44.  It appears from the information provided by the Government that the second applicant failed to provide the school with the medical information concerning the first applicant’s needs in terms of physical recuperation. The physical education teacher created a special programme for the child despite not being acquainted with the precise medical recommendations. The second applicant refused to bring the child to his sessions. 45.  The school also arranged psychological counselling for the applicants, which was not pursued as the second applicant stopped bringing the child to the meetings. 46.  During the 2015/16 school year the first applicant received weekly sessions of speech therapy and educational therapy during the periods when he attended school. In the next school year the sessions were discontinued because the second applicant refused to give her assent. 47.  The first applicant could not receive physiotherapy in school as his mother refused to allow him to participate in any session which did not take place in the school gymnasium. She also omitted to present the medical certificates that were required in order for the therapist to adapt the sessions to the first applicant’s needs. 48.  In 2011 the second applicant asked the authorities to appoint a personal assistant for her son to provide him with support, in particular during school hours. She explained that she could not act as his personal assistant as she had to work for a living. On 15 September 2011 the school administration also informed the child protection authority that in the absence of a personal assistant the first applicant could not safely continue his studies in a mainstream school. 49.  According to the applicants, the child protection authority initially denied that the first applicant had the right to a personal assistant, then considered the second applicant to be the child’s personal assistant. 50.  In a judgment of 19 July 2011 (case no. 8249/3/2011), the Bucharest County Court (hereinafter “the County Court”) partly allowed an action brought by the second applicant against various authorities concerning the manner in which they had dealt with her son’s situation. The court observed that the rehabilitation plan had not been drawn up in accordance with the legal requirements, in particular because the second applicant had not been involved in the process and the plan had not included all the services required by the child and had not taken into account his particular needs. It therefore ordered the child protection authority to supplement the plan according to the court’s instructions. Furthermore, the court noted that it was not objectively impossible for the authorities to hire a personal assistant for the first applicant. It therefore ordered the child protection authority to identify a suitable person and to make a proposal to the city council, which in turn was ordered to provide the necessary funds from its budget to cover the salary of the personal assistant. The decision was upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in a final decision of 9 April 2012. 51.  On 19 October 2011 the second applicant asked school no. 131 to hire a nurse who could assist her son with his needs, as an alternative to the appointment of a personal assistant, but no such appointment was made during the first applicant’s stay in this school (see paragraph 15 above). 52.  According to the information transmitted by the Government, between 2011 and 2014 the child protection authorities organised several interviews in order to find a suitable personal assistant for the first applicant. Eventually, on 23 May 2014 the child protection authority hired a personal assistant. On 17 September 2014 that person resigned, on the ground that the second applicant had asked her to perform tasks which were not consistent with her job description. 53.  On 29 January 2015 the second applicant informed the authorities that she insisted that a personal assistant be hired. Three individuals expressed an interest in the position and were approved by the second applicant. However, one refused to sign the contract as he considered the second applicant’s attitude towards him to be abusive and offensive; he explained that the second applicant had asked him to wash dishes and clean the house, tasks which had not been in his job description, and had then accused him of wanting to harm her son. The other candidates took the job on a part-time basis starting on 1 September 2015. One had to leave on 16 December 2015 as his visa was not extended, and the other resigned for health reasons on 27 January 2016. 54.  In January 2016 the authorities started the process of finding a new personal assistant, working in close contact with various non-governmental organisations involved in the protection of disabled persons. 55.  The second applicant lodged several complaints with the administrative authorities, with the National Council against Discrimination (Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării, “the NCAD”) (at least six cases lodged directly with this authority and continued before the courts), with the courts (at least five applications lodged directly with the courts) and with the prosecutor’s office (at least sixteen complaints have been investigated so far by the prosecutor’s office). These complaints mainly concerned the alleged lack of services for her son, both in school and outside school, and the manner in which the competent authorities handling his case had discharged their obligation to support the first applicant and to adapt the infrastructure to the needs of people with disabilities, and in particular to the first applicant’s needs. 56.  The case concerned an application lodged by the applicants on 24 April 2014               against the authorities with responsibility for assisting the applicants with matters concerning disability and education, namely the Bucharest Centre for Resources and Educational Assistance (Centrul Municipiului Bucureşti de Resurse şi Asistenţă Educaţională, “the CMBRAE”), the Bucharest local council of the fourth precinct, which was responsible for M.E. School (“the Bucharest IV local council”), the Bucharest local council of the fifth precinct, which was responsible for school no. 131 (“the Bucharest V local council”), the child protection authority, the Commission for Child Protection (an authority created at local level under Law no. 272/2004 on the protection and promotion of children’s rights), the ISMB, and the NCAD. The applicants sought to compel these authorities to re-evaluate the first applicant’s educational placement, to provide support in school, to adapt the school premises to the first applicant’s needs, and to grant compensation for the harm suffered by the child in school. 57.  On 30 June 2014 and 13 and 20 August 2015 the applicants extended their action and on the last-mentioned date asked the court to ensure that the same hardship would not continue also in M.E. School. On 25 November 2014 the Administrative Disputes Division of the County Court sent the case to the Civil Division of the same court and on 23 June 2015 the case was sent to a bench of the Civil Division specialising in children’s rights. 58.  In a decision of 10 June 2016 the County Court found partly in favour of the applicants and ordered the local authorities to take several actions, in accordance with their remit:
(a)  It ordered the CMBRAE to issue a new personalised intervention plan (plan de intervenţie personalizat); it also noted that the first applicant was already allowed extended work time during tests in class and had a specially adapted desk, but considered that those measures, while being necessary, were not sufficient.
(b)  The court ordered the CMBRAE and the ISMB to adapt the school curriculum and the educational plans to the first applicant’s needs, finding as follows:
“While in the special education [curriculum] the educational plans and school curriculum are tailored to the type and degree of disability, thus allowing time for therapy ..., in mainstream schools this kind of adaptation does not exist.
However, in the present case the child, who was placed in a mainstream school, has a normally developed intellect but has a neuromotor disability which drastically limits his movement ... A daily school programme of 6-7 hours goes against the medical recommendations ... and limits his opportunities to undergo therapy.”
(c)  It ordered the ISMB and the child protection authority to continue to provide the first applicant with psycho-educational assistance and a safe environment in school, in terms of the physical surroundings and specialist personnel. The court found as follows:
“The current legislation provides for measures capable of ensuring the integration of children with disabilities in school and in society, notably special educational services via the support teacher, speech therapy and psycho-educational counselling. ...
The personal rehabilitation plan drafted by the child protection authority [for the first applicant] provided for such services: physiotherapy, speech therapy and psychological counselling. ....
Based on the parties’ statements, the court finds that the authorities involved did not refuse to provide the child with the services that he was entitled to under the law and which were included in his personal rehabilitation plan; [what they refused were] merely the conditions imposed by the mother that [the services] should be provided on the school premises ...
However, in order to meet the child’s complex needs and ensure that he had access to all services, the authorities, in addition to the psycho-educational counselling offered by the school psychologist, organised speech therapy and physiotherapy in his school.
For these reasons, the [applicants’] action is allowed and the institutions involved are ordered to take measures to ensure the continuity of services in terms of personnel, but also in terms of the physical environment and the necessary equipment.”
(d)  The court ordered the ISMB, the child protection authority, the Bucharest V local council and the Bucharest IV local council to take measures to ensure the child’s assistance and safety in school, via teachers, school auxiliary staff, a personal assistant or a qualified caregiver. The court found as follows:
“The services provided in school to assist [the first applicant], provided by psychologists, speech therapists, school counsellors, support teachers, physiotherapists, etc., are necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of the child’s recuperation and therapy, but do not fully meet the child’s complex needs during school time.
... the child has severe neuromotor disabilities which make it impossible for him to move, to walk, to help himself, to take notes in class, etc., and which consequently make it necessary for him to be assisted by another person who can move him, as needed, from the wheelchair or assistive devices to his desk and back; help him move around the school (take charge of him at the school door, accompany him back to the door at the end of the school day, and take him to the toilet, the sports room, and the laboratories which are on the upper floor); help him with taking notes during lessons and writing down the homework; assist him with physical exercises; assist him in the event of an emergency evacuation, etc. ...
Concerning the presence of a nurse [infirmier] the court notes that, although the law requires that children with disabilities be integrated in mainstream schools, the schools’ structure does not include qualified staff who can meet the complex needs of a child with severe neuromotor disabilities that limit or exclude the child’s capacity to move or to help himself.
The absence of assistance ... makes it impossible for the child to attend school and affects ... his right to education ...
The personal assistant not only acts as an accompanying adult for a child with severe disabilities but must also provide basic care (personal hygiene, dressing and undressing, personal and intimate care, feeding, hydration, transport, mobility and movement, etc.), assist in the child’s family, community, and school activities, and assist in the child’s school and with his or her educational integration.
There is nothing to prevent the [child protection authority] and the Bucharest V local council from including these activities in the personal assistant’s contract ...
Therefore the court considers that, in principle, the assistance, supervision and safety of the child during school hours must be ensured by his personal assistant or in the latter’s absence ... by a person approved and nominated for the purpose by the parent ...
For the same reason, the ISMB and the Bucharest IV local council ... must take measures in order to ensure the child’s effective access to education and his supervision and safety. ...
As the court thus considers that the child’s action is well-founded on this count, it orders the ISMB, the child protection authority and the Bucharest IV and V local councils to take measures in order to ensure the child’s supervision and safety in school, via the teachers or auxiliary staff, his personal assistant or a qualified caregiver.”
(e)  The court ordered the ISMB and the Bucharest IV local council to ensure the first applicant’s access to education by rendering the school building accessible by wheelchair, in particular by: providing specially adapted desks in the classroom and laboratories; ensuring access to the upper floors of the school building; removing the obstacles preventing the first applicant from moving around the school, such as thresholds and narrow doors; adapting the sports room to the child’s needs; and providing him with a computer and software adapted to his educational needs. The court noted that on 28 October 2015, at its request, the authorities had met with the applicants in order to listen to their demands and agree on solutions. It took note of the fact that at the date of the meeting, in M.E. School, there had been two reserved parking places and a toilet adapted to the first applicant’s needs. 59.  At the same time, the District Court dismissed the applicants’ request for reimbursement of the costs incurred in respect of transport to and from school with their own vehicles, on the grounds that they received financial assistance from the State in the form of free public transport and an annual lump sum for costs, which was meant to cover transport as well. 60.  Lastly, with regard to the request for non-pecuniary damage on account of the discrimination suffered by the applicants because of the authorities’ attitude towards them, the District Court separated the issue from the main proceedings and created case no. 22624/3/2016. In a final decision of 31 May 2018 in that case, the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the ISMB, the CMBRAE and the Bucharest V local council to pay the applicants 7,500 Romanian lei (RON)[1] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 61.  In a final decision of 7 February 2018 the Bucharest Court of Appeal examined the appeals lodged by the parties against the decision of 10 June 2016. It amended the County Court’s decision so that the authorities’ obligations applied only for as long as the first applicant attended classes in a mainstream school, but dismissed the remaining appeals. 62.  On 5 April 2018 the applicants started enforcement proceedings through the offices of a bailiff. 63.  In decision no. 913 of 25 July 2016 the County Court ordered the authorities to appoint a person to assist the first applicant in school until the decision of 10 June 2016 became final (see paragraph 58 above). 64.  On 28 November 2016 the bailiff ordered the authorities to comply with the court order and to pay the applicants the costs of the enforcement proceedings. 65.  The Bucharest IV local council contested the enforcement proceedings, arguing that the council had already complied with the court order in so far as, when the school year had started on 12 September 2016, a person had been appointed to assist the first applicant in school. The council explained that the person appointed to assist the first applicant had been replaced on several occasions because of disagreements with the second applicant, but argued that the mere fact that the second applicant was dissatisfied with these persons could not be regarded as a failure on the part of the authorities to comply with the court order. 66.  In a judgment of 2 March 2017 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the objection and found as follows:
“It appears that the minor, Stoian Ştefan Moshe, was unable to benefit from the measures ordered by the court not only because of the poor cooperation between his legal representative and the ... authorities, but also because of the bureaucratic mechanism for implementing the measures and the manner in which responsibilities in this sphere are shared between the authorities concerned.
The court considers that there is no evidence that the minor’s legal representative refused enforcement of the obligations laid down in the court order.” 67.  On 25 April 2017 the District Court dismissed an objection to enforcement in which the ISMB and the CMBRAE also claimed that they had already complied with the court order. The court found as follows:
“The assertions made by the objecting parties – that at the date on which the enforcement request was lodged they had already complied with the obligations laid down in the court decision – is contradicted by the facts, as the child’s school situation is still uncertain in so far as he still does not benefit in school from the conditions set by that court decision.” 68.  On 23 January 2018 the District Court noted that the authorities had not fully complied with their obligation under the interim injunction of 25 July 2016 and that all the objections to enforcement had been dismissed. Consequently, it ordered each of those authorities to pay RON 200 for each day of delay in enforcement. 69.  On 3 April 2013 the second applicant had a dispute in school with her son’s teacher, during the lesson. The class teacher asked her to leave the classroom, warning her that her presence was no longer tolerated and that the authorities had been alerted. The second applicant refused to leave and was eventually removed by force by two police officers and taken to the police station. She was given a formal warning for refusing to leave the school premises. She left the police station three hours later and went back to the school to collect her son. According to the Government, during the second applicant’s stay in the police station, the first applicant remained in school, in the presence of the school nurse and a teacher on duty. 70.  On 31 May 2013 the applicants filed a criminal complaint about the incidents. The school headmaster, supported by parents’ statements, also lodged a complaint against the second applicant, alleging that she had repeatedly disturbed the learning process. The second applicant and the school headmaster gave statements to the police. On 4 April 2017 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest District Court closed the investigation. It found, based on the evidence in the file, that the force used by the police officers had been necessary in order to put an end to the second applicant’s disruptive behaviour and had been proportionate to her reactions. It observed that the second applicant had disturbed lessons and had refused to leave the classroom, to show her identity papers to the police and to accompany the police officers to the police station. The prosecutor concluded that the injuries suffered by the second applicant had been the result of the use of force and of her own opposition to the police officers’ actions. On 18 October 2017 the objection lodged by the applicants against the prosecutor’s decision was dismissed as out of time by the chief prosecutor from the same prosecutor’s office. The applicants’ appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Bucharest District Court (final decision of 11 December 2017).