CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2019

.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 10 January 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 80450/17 Ingeborg GODENAU against Germany lodged on 20 November 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s request for the deletion of information about her on a list concerning the reinstatement of unsuitable teachers, which the Hessian school authority holds ready for inspection by schools before employing new teachers. The applicant worked as a teacher from 2004 until 2006. Her intense commitment to “ Die Republikaner ”, a party considered as right-wing extremist, had given rise to doubts as to her constitutional loyalty. She was subsequently fired, and labour court proceedings resulted in an agreement whereby her time-barred employment contract would not be renewed. In 2008, the Federal State of Hesse informed the applicant that her name, her date of birth, her professional education and the “reasons” for her unsuitability, in particular her continuing commitment to the party in question, had been put on the list. She unsuccessfully requested the deletion of that information before the Administrative Courts, which established that the list did not lack a sufficient legal basis, nor had it been substantively wrongful to put her name on the list. QUESTIOnS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?