| Applicant name | a.k. |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Russia |
| Application no. | 49014/16 |
| Date | 07/05/2024 |
| Judges | Pere Pastor Vilanova, President, Yonko Grozev, Georgios A. Serghides, Darian Pavli, Peeter Roosma, Andreas Zünd, Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation 8+14 |
| Reason | Interference without good reason |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy; private life; realtional privacy |
| Keywords | Workplace privacy; social media; gay |
| Facts of the case | The present case concerns the decision to terminate the applicant’s labour contract, which had been allegedly discriminatory and taken on the ground of her sexual orientation. |
| Analysis | The Court concludes that the applicant’s dismissal from her workplace due to the posting of photos showing affection to intimate partners and a middle finger gesture had amounted to a disproportionate interference with her rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant’s sexuality was at the very core of the national authorities’ decision to terminate her contract. The national courts in their judgments claimed that the applicant’s dismissal was justified not by her sexual orientation, but by the actions apparently predetermined by it. The Court is unable to entertain this logic. An individual’s sexual orientation may not be isolated from the private and public expressions of it, which are evidently protected elements of an individual’s private life under Article 8 of the Convention. The posting of travel and partying photos showing affection towards intimate partners is a commonplace practice on social media. The authorities’ hostile reaction in the present case was unmistakably driven by the lack of acceptance of the applicant’s sexuality and was, therefore, patently discriminatory. There is no evidence that anything beyond sexual orientation had supported the authorities’ conclusions regarding immorality of conduct in photos demonstrating the applicant’s affection towards other women. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | hat the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 6,500 (six thousand five hundred euros), in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (iii) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (iv) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; |
| Documents | Judgment |