CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left }   Communicated on 26 October 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no 49014/16 A.K. against Russia lodged on 10 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal for “immoral behaviour” from her post as a music teacher at a state school for children with special needs after her pictures with her girlfriend and other pictures taken outside work – published in a private (for friends only) album on her personal account on the social networking site VKontakte – had been made available on the Internet with unrestricted access by a third person. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s dismissal from her post amount to an interference with her right to respect for private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference compatible with the requirements of Article 8 § 2? In particular: –     Was the interference prescribed by law? Was it “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? –     Was the decision-making process leading to the interference fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts specify which pictures were problematic (see Kaos Gl v. Turkey , no. 4982/07, §§ 57 and   58, 22   November 2016)? Did they examine whether the applicant was responsible for their dissemination on the Internet with unrestricted access?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8? In particular, does Russian law provides for protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation?