CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 août 2023

.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 } Published on 18 September 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 20839/22 Eva Hristova OBESNIKOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 21 April 2022 communicated on 29 August 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint that the refusal of the domestic authorities to enrol the applicant, a girl aged 17 at the time of the events, in the local age-appropriate football team - because it was for boys and she was a girl - discriminated against her on the basis of her sex in the exercise of her right to private life. The applicant had been enrolled in an all-girls local football team with whom she had been playing until she turned 16. Thereafter, having passed medical check-ups which confirmed that she had the right to participate in tournaments of the Bulgarian Football Union (BFU), she started practising with the local all-boys team for boys aged 16 to 18, as there was no girls’ team for that age group in the town where she lived. When the boys’ club in which she trained requested to sign her up officially, referring to her physical aptness and exemplary attitude in the training process, the BFU refused because as a girl she could not be enrolled in an all boys’ team. The applicant unsuccessfully brought proceedings domestically, complaining of discrimination. In a final decision of 28 October 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) overturned the lower court’s judgment and agreed instead with the decision of the Commission Against Discrimination which had rejected the applicant’s complaint. The SAC held that there had been no difference in treatment in the applicant’s case, hence no discrimination. The reason was that there had been no representative of the comparator group of relevance, namely all other girls of the applicant’s age, who had been registered as a member of an all boys’ team. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her right to respect for her private life on the ground of her sex, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?