The EctHR held that Art.14of the European Convention on Human Rights is also violated if states fail to treat different persons differently when their situations differ significantly and fail to address different needs without objective and reasonable justification.

The ECtHR also confirmed that persons with disabilities are covered by the term “other status” in Art. 14, even if the protective characteristic of disability or impairment due to illness is not explicitly mentioned in the wording here.

The ECtHR found that in the case, it is not the applicant who is the bearer of the characteristic of protection. However, the interpretation of the term “other status” of Article 14 was to be interpreted broadly by previous ECtHR jurisprudence and thus, included those forms of discrimination in which an individual was treated less favourably because of the protective characteristic of another individual.

The Court held that the applicant's treatment because of his close personal connection to and care of his son with disabilities was a form of discrimination on grounds of disability under Article 14 of the Convention. The Court also found that the flat without a lift on the third floor constituted an inadequate living environment for the family. The son's mobility was thereby massively restricted and this restriction massively threatened his personal development and his ability to develop his potential, as well as to be part of the community and to engage in educational, cultural and social activities for children.

According to the ECtHR, the applicant was in the same position as any other person who wishes to adapt housing to specific needs. His situation differed only with regard to the importance of “basic infrastructural requirements”.

There was thus a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, according to the ECtHR. The applicant subsequently received compensation from Croatia in the amount of €5,000, as well as €11,500 in wrongfully paid taxes.