CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 12 December 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 84543/17 Cemal DUĞAN against Turkey lodged on 8 December 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention in a police station for two hours and imposition on her of an administrative fine, in the amount of 80   Turkish liras, for disrupting traffic. The applicant raised her complaints before the Turkish Constitutional Court, which found them to be manifestly ill-founded on the ground that the applicant’s detention in police station, approximately for one hour, could be considered reasonable given that the police officers had to verify on the Turkish National Surveillance System (UYAP) whether there was any arrest warrant issued against her and that they imposed an administrative fine for disrupting traffic. Invoking Articles 5 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the authorities deprived her of her liberty only because she was transgender. She further argues that her alleged act should have been treated as   a misdemeanour and that there was no reason to keep her in police station.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the applicant’s specific allegations, was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty compatible with the requirements of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention (see Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos.   29580/12   and 4 others, §   §   68-72, 15 November 2018)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights on account of her sexual orientation, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 5?