CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 17 December 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57308/11 Yasemen KURTTAŞ against Turkey lodged on 2 August 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the national authorities to call back the applicant – who was an officer of the Turkish Air Force – to Turkey from the United States where she was pursuing a master’s degree at the US Air Force Institute of Technology. Some of her behaviours with foreign officers as well as photos of her posted online on social media sites were considered inappropriate by the relevant national military authorities. The applicant explains that these photos were taken in a pub when students of the Air Force Institute of Technology and their families were having fun. The photos provided by the applicant show her dancing with men and embracing men. Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant submits that the impugned decision entailed a violation of her right to respect for private life. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant contends that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex and that her private behaviour was considered inappropriate by the national authorities because she is a woman.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In light of the Court’s case-law (for the relevant principles see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 92-117, 25 September 2018) has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her 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 the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of her sex, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8? In particular, was the applicant’s behaviour considered inappropriate because she is a woman?