CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 avril 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 73248/16 Dumitru OPREA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 25 November 2016 communicated on 6 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged discrimination of the applicant on account of his sex. The applicant, an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, requested to be granted parental leave. However, his employer refused to do so on the ground that such leave was reserved to female employees only and dismissed him from employment for failure to show up to work. The applicant initiated a court action seeking an acknowledgement of discrimination, reinstatement, and compensation. The courts admitted his claim partly and acknowledged his discrimination without ordering his reinstatement and/or awarding him any compensation. The applicant contends that he suffered a breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 and that he did not lose his victim status as a result of the domestic courts’ judgments. He also complains that the domestic courts did not motivate properly their judgments, as required under Article 6 § 1.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the refusal of parental leave on account of the applicant’s sex amounted to discrimination against him, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, knowing that the complaint under Article 6 § 1 is absorbed by the procedural limb of those addressed under the former provisions ( Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no.   30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts))?