CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 novembre 2024

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 2 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 49283/22 Alina MARINESCU against Romania lodged on 11 October 2022 communicated on 13 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of discrimination regarding allocation of pregnancy benefits (maternity risk allowance) between women employed with labour contracts (“ salariate ”) and women in liberal professions. On 1 May 2020 the applicant signed a contract with the Dolj Agency for Social Insurance (“CAS”) allowing her to benefit from social insurance under Emergency Government Ordinance no. 158/2005 (“OUG 158/2005”). She became pregnant and as her pregnancy did not allow her to continue to work, she benefited from a social allowance for maternity risk ( risc maternal ) from 15 May 2020 to 31 July 2020 (Emergency Government Ordinance no. 96/2003 on the protection at work of pregnant women, “OUG   96/2003”). On 15 September 2021 the CAS sought restitution of the allowances paid to the applicant, on the ground that, as she was not an employee, she did not qualify for those payments. On 14 January 2022 the Dolj County Court dismissed the action, on the grounds that the content of the substantive right to protection during pregnancy was the same for all pregnant women. In a final decision of 6 June 2022 the Craiova Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and the action on the ground that only women employed via a labour contract could benefit from the protection of OUG 96/2003. The applicant was ordered to pay back 85,883 Romanian Lei (approximately 17,500 euros at that time). The applicant argues that she was discriminated against because of the arbitrary exclusion of pregnant women in a liberal profession from the benefit of the allowance for maternity risk (she invokes, in this respect, Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12). She also complains about the manner in which the Cour of Appeal examined her case (Article 6 of the Convention), and about an alleged infringement of her right to respect for her private life (Article 8 of the Convention) and of her right to respect for the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), as she was ordered to return the money received, although she had used that money to pay for her expenses during the pregnancy. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on account of her sex and/or type of employment, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or to Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention, insofar as she was denied the benefit of a social allowance for maternity risk on equal terms with other pregnant women (see, notably, Jurčić v.   Croatia , no. 54711/15, §§ 69-70 and 84-85, 4   February 2021)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations before the Court of Appeal, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Court of Appeal examine the arguments raised by the applicant and correctly engage with the applicable law (see Napotnik v. Romania , no. 33139/13, §§   40-42, 20 October 2020)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, given that she was ordered to return the money received in respect of social allowance for maternity risk?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, given that she was ordered to return the money received in respect of social allowance for maternity risk?   If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V and Čakarević v. Croatia , no. 48921/13, §§ 50-53 and 72, 26   April 2018)?