CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 12 September 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 61347/16 Nilgün TÜRK against Germany lodged on 18 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a Muslim, worked as a nurse in a hospital held by a private company whose only shareholder was a protestant foundation. Upon return from a period of leave, she notified her employer of her intention to wear a head scarf during working hours for religious reasons. The employing hospital refused her wish to continue employment under these conditions. Subsequent complaints and appeals to Labour Courts and the Federal Constitutional Court were of no avail, finally. The applicant complained under Article 9 of the Convention of an unjustified interference with her freedom of religion. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the Federal Labour Court’s decision of 3 December 2015 to declare the applicant’s request for leave to appeal on points of law inadmissible, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of religion, contrary to Article   9 of the Convention?