CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 December 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 19191/19 Ignazio CAFIERO against Italy lodged on 1 April 2019 communicated on 27 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to grant a parental leave (so-called “ riposi giornalieri ”, daily rest) to the applicant, a road police officer. Under sections 39 and 40 of Legislative Decree no. 151 of 26 March 2001, by contrast to working mothers, working fathers are entitled to daily rest only if: (a)     they have sole custody of the child; (b)     the salaried worker mother decides to not make use of daily rest; (c)     the mother is not a salaried worker; (d)     the mother is dead or seriously ill. Since the applicant’s wife was a housewife, national authorities considered that the applicant was not entitled to parental leave. The applicant contends that he suffered a breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his sex, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts), Hulea v. Romania , no. 33411/05, 2 October 2012, and Farchica v. Italy (dec.) [Committee], no. 39600/13, 28 March 2017)?   The parties are invited to comment on any relevant development in the case-law of the competent courts and, in particular, on the judgment of the plenary session of the Council of State of 28 December 2022, no. 17.