CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 décembre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 180 December 2014 Emel Boyraz v. Turkey - 61960/08 Judgment 2.12.2014 [Section II] Article 14 Discrimination Woman dismissed from post of security officer on grounds of her sex: violation Facts – In 1999 the applicant, a Turkish woman, successfully sat a public-servant examination for the post of security officer in a branch of a State-run electricity company. The company initially refused to appoint her because she did not fulfil the requirements of “being a man” and “having completed military service”, but that decision was annulled by the district administrative court and the applicant started work in 2001. In 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and in 2004 the applicant was dismissed. The district administrative court ruled that the dismissal was lawful in a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant’s request for rectification was ultimately dismissed in 2008. Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article   8 (a)     Applicability – The applicant had complained about the difference in treatment to which she had been subjected, not about the refusal of the domestic authorities to appoint her as a civil servant as such, which was a right not covered by the Convention. She had thus to be regarded as an official who had been appointed to the civil service and was subsequently dismissed on the ground of her sex. This constituted an interference with her right to respect for her private life because a measure as drastic as a dismissal from work on the sole ground of a person’s sex must have adverse effects on his or her identity, self-perception and self-respect, and, as a result, his or her private life. Conclusion : preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously). (b)     Merits – The domestic authorities had sought to justify their initial refusal to hire the applicant and her subsequent dismissal on the ground that the tasks of security officers involved risks and responsibilities which they considered women were unable to assume. However, they had not substantiated that argument and in a similar case concerning another woman decided only three months before the judgment regarding the applicant another domestic court had held that there was no obstacle to the appointment of a woman to the same post in the same company. Moreover, the mere fact that security officers had to work night shifts and in rural areas and could be required to use firearms or physical force could not in itself justify the difference in treatment between men and women. Furthermore, the applicant had worked as a security officer between 2001 and 2004. She was only dismissed because of the judicial decisions. Nothing in the case file indicated that she had in any way failed to fulfil her duties as a security officer because of her sex. As it had not been shown that the difference in treatment suffered by the applicant pursued a legitimate aim, it amounted to discrimination on grounds of sex. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). The Court also found, unanimously, a violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of the domestic proceedings and the lack of adequate reasoning in the Supreme Administrative Court’s decisions but no violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the conflicting decisions rendered by the Supreme Administrative Court. Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. (See Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], 30078/06, 22   March 2012, Information Note   150 ; and, more generally, the Factsheet on Work-related rights )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes