Regional systems 103 In appropriate circumstances, an applicant may be awarded legal aid by the Court and, in the event of a finding of violation, may also recover necessary expenses incurred in the preparation of the case. However, this assistance only becomes potentially available after the respondent Government has been asked for its observations on the admissibility of the application. Unlike in some domestic legal systems, applicants cannot be required to pay legal costs incurred by the State against which a claim is brought. The Court considers a large number of individual cases as well as inter-State cases (rarely), and its jurisprudence is enormous.129 In recent years, 40,000 to 50,000 applications have been lodged annually. The summary below can only outline certain issues that have arisen in connection with minorities in cases before the Court. The Convention contains no minority rights provision akin to article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Therefore, there is no way in which members of minority groups can directly claim “minority rights” before the European Court of Human Rights. Nevertheless, a number of rights guaranteed by the Convention may be invoked in relation to the protection of minorities. The Convention and minority rights Many of the rights contained in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are relevant to minorities, but the phrase “national minority” appears in only two of its articles. Article 14 states that “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”. Article 14 is not a free-standing right to non-discrimination, and it may be raised only in connection with another Convention right. Despite its limitations, article 14 has in recent years been invoked successfully to address concerns of minorities, in particular Roma. In Gaygusuz v. Austria (1996) the Court found a violation of article 14 read in conjunction with article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with respect to the difference in treatment between Austrians and non-Austrians as regards their entitlement to emergency assistance. In Nachova v. Bulgaria (2005) the Court found for the first time a violation of the principle against racial discrimination contained in article 14 (read in conjunction with art. 2, on the right to life) in that the authorities had failed to investigate possible racist motives behind the shooting of Roma by military police. In D. H. and Others v. the Czech Republic (2007) the Court further developed its jurisprudence under article 14, finding that the disproportionately high placement of Romani students in so-called “special schools” for children with mental disabilities violated the right to be free from racial discrimination (read in conjunction with art. 2 of Protocol No. 1, on the right to education). This was further upheld in Oršuš and Others v. Croatia (2010) when the Court ruled that “the placement, at times, of the applicants in Roma-only classes during their primary education had not been justified, in violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1”. In Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria (2008) the Court found a violation of article 14 read in conjunction with article 9 as regards the way in which religious communities were granted the status of a religious society. Protocol No. 12, which entered into force in 2005, creates a general prohibition against discrimination in the application of any right guaranteed by law or by any public authority. Thus, See www.echr.coe.int. 129