CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 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 21 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29728/08 Mahmut KUZU against Turkey lodged on 2 June 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disciplinary sanction, namely, a salary deduction of one thirtieth, imposed on the applicant - a teacher - for giving private language courses in Kurdish and keeping certain banned publications at his home. The applicant initiated proceedings and requested the annulment of the administrative act, pointing out that before the imposition of the disciplinary sanction he had been acquitted of the criminal charges brought against him for unlicensed teaching. His case was dismissed and the judgment was later upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Articles 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2, in particular taking account of the entry into force of Law no.   4963, which made changes in the Law on Language Learning and set forth that various languages and dialects used by Turkish citizens in their daily lives could be taught in private courses, as pointed out by two members of the Supreme Administrative Courts in their dissenting opinions?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his linguistic identity contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 and/or 10 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article   13 of the Convention, in connection with the alleged violation of his Convention rights?   The Government are requested to submit a copy of the disciplinary investigation file.