CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 33139/13 Oana-Cornelia NAPOTNIK against Romania lodged on 8 May 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the immediate termination of the applicant’s diplomatic mission in Slovenia because of her pregnancy and despite the fact that the quality of her work had been satisfactory. In a final decision no.   6061 of 8 November 2012 (file no. 18373/3/2011) the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s complaint. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of her pregnancy contrary to Article 1 Protocol No. 12 to the Convention?   2.     In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in the exercise of her duties as diplomatic Second Secretary ( secretar II ) and coordinator of the consular section ( şeful secţiei consulare ) of the Romanian Embassy in Slovenia?   3.     If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification? In particular, the reasons offered by the domestic courts in file no. 18373/3/2011, in order to justify the role played by the applicant’s pregnancy in the decision to recall her, were they relevant and sufficient?