CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2018

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 27 August 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59249/10 Lokman KOÇHAN against Turkey lodged on 6 September 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disciplinary sanction that was imposed on the applicant, a primary school teacher, for giving private Kurdish lessons at his free time and possessing illegal publications. The disciplinary sanction was upheld by the administrative courts, although the applicant had been acquitted of the relevant criminal charges by criminal courts due to lack of evidence. The case mainly raises issues under Articles 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention as to whether the disciplinary sanction at issue amounted to discriminatory treatment on the basis of language and ethnical origin, as alleged by the applicant, and violated his right to respect for his privacy and freedom of expression, and whether the applicant had an effective remedy before domestic courts in relation to those complaints. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 § 2?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular with his right to receive and impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his linguistic identity contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 and/or 10 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article   13 of the Convention, in connection with the alleged violation of his Convention rights?   The Government are requested to submit a copy of the disciplinary investigation file.