CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } Published on 7 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 14182/25 Baris ZIYA against Cyprus lodged on 24 April 2025 communicated on 17 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns section 97 of the Cypriot Criminal Code (Cap.   154) which criminalises the organisation of a “Muslim celebration” (wedding or circumcision party) in which a female singer is performing. The applicant’s daughter was set to get married in October 2025. He had planned to organise a party in the family house and invite a female singer to perform. Relying on Article 8, the applicant claims that section 97 of the Criminal Code interferes with his private life in that it precludes him from celebrating his daughter’s wedding as he wants to in fear of prosecution by the authorities. He further raises Article 14 alleging that the above-mentioned legal provision is discriminatory on the ground of religion. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 (see   among many authorities, Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no.   21881/20, §§   107 and 110, 27 November 2023; Nurcan Bayraktar v.   Türkiye , no.   27094/20, § 26, 27 June 2023; Michaud v. France , no.   12323/11, §   51, ECHR   2012 ; Modinos v. Cyprus , 22 April 1993, §§   20 and 23-24, Series A no.   259 and Norris v. Ireland , 26 October 1988, §   33, Series A no. 142?)   The applicant is invited to inform the Court of any relevant updates, especially with regards to the planned celebration of his daughter’s wedding in October 2025.   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention on account of the criminalisation of organising a Muslim wedding celebration with a female singer (see, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§   110 and 113-114, 25 September 2018; Vučina v. Croatia (dec.), no. 58955/13, §§   28 and 30-33, 24 September 2019?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his religion, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8?