CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 juillet 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 22 July 2016     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 54927/15 László János MENDREI against Hungary lodged on 30 October 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the ex lege membership of public school teachers in the National College of Pedagogues, established as of 1   September 2013. In contrast, the compulsory membership does not apply to teachers employed in the private sector. The applicant, who is a teacher in a public school, complains that, on the strength of his ex lege membership, he is bound by various rules and ethical codes the purpose of which is to create a community of teachers devoid of any individuality. He invokes Article 10 of the Convention read alone and in conjunction with Article 14.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the National College of Pedagogues an association within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and   De Meyere v. Belgium , 23 June 1981, § 64, Series A no. 43; Sigurður A.   Sigurjónsson v. Iceland , 30 June 1993, § 31, Series A no. 264; and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and   28443/95, §§ 97 to 102, ECHR 1999 ‑ III)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s negative freedom of association (see Chassagnou and Others, cited above, § 103), contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of his compulsory membership in the National College of Pedagogues?   3.     Does the applicant’s employment in the public sphere constitute a protected characteristic (“status”) for the purposes of Article   14 (cf.   Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark , 7 December 1976, §   56, Series A no. 23; Magee v. the United Kingdom , no. 28135/95, § 50, ECHR 2000 ‑ VI)?   4.     If so, has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his compulsory membership in the National College of Pedagogues flowing from his employment in the public sphere, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 11?