CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } Published on 21 June 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27094/20 Nurcan BAYRAKTAR against Turkey lodged on 27 June 2020 communicated on 2 June 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the national courts to grant the applicant’s request to be dispensed from the 300-days waiting period for remarriage after her divorce provided by Article 132 of the Turkish Civil Law (Law   no.   4721). The applicant requested to the relevant national courts the dispensation of the 300-days waiting period without having to undergo medical examinations/tests to establish that she was not pregnant. Under Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that having to wait such a period of time only because she is a woman or having to prove to that she is not pregnant before she can remarry constitute a discrimination and a violation of her right to respect for her private life and her right to marry. The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the excessive length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the refusal of the national courts to lift the 300-days waiting period without the applicant having to undergo medical examinations/tests to establish that she was not pregnant constitute an interference with her right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 § 1 ? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, is the requirement that the applicant undergo medical examinations/tests to establish that she was not pregnant as a condition for the lifting of the 300-days waiting period, necessary and proportionate?   3.     Was the applicant’s rights under Article 12, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, breached by the refusal of the national courts to dispense the applicant from the 300-days waiting period?   4.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights on the ground of her sex, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 and/or Article 12?