| Applicant name | B.T. |
| Applicant type | Natural Person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Russia |
| Application no. | 15284/19 |
| Date | 19/03/2024 |
| Judges | Pere Pastor Vilanova, President, Yonko Grozev, Georgios A. Serghides, Darian Pavli, Peeter Roosma, Ioannis Ktistakis, Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation (14+8) |
| Reason | No due process |
| Type of privacy | Relational privacy; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Parental leave father |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained that the refusal to grant him parental leave amounted to discrimination on grounds of sex. He relied on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | Russian law provides that male police personnel are entitled to apply for parental leave if their children are left without maternal care for objective reasons. The entitlement of male police officers to parental leave is therefore conditional upon a lack of maternal care for their children for objective reasons, while policewomen are unconditionally entitled to such leave. The Court has previously examined this difference in treatment between male and female police personnel and came to the conclusion that it was not objectively and reasonably justified under Article 14 of the Convention Due to the strict and discriminatory interpretation of the conditional entitlement of male police personnel to parental leave – subject to lack of maternal care for objective reasons – the applicant’s request for parental leave was rejected despite the particular circumstances of his family situation clearly showing the absence of maternal care for his newborn child on a daily basis. No regard whatsoever was had to the best interests of the child. Most importantly, in refusing to grant parental leave to the applicant, the domestic authorities did not refer to any circumstances showing that a temporary departure on parental leave of police officers holding positions similar to the applicant’s (head of the road police) would undermine the operational effectiveness of the police. The authorities therefore failed to perform any balancing exercise between the legitimate interest in ensuring the operational effectiveness of the police on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the applicant’s right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex as regards access to parental leave. |
| Other Article violation? | 14 |
| Damage awarded | The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. |
| Documents | Judgment |