CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 22 September 2020 Published on 12 October 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 15284/19 B.T. against Russia lodged on 7 March 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to grant parental leave to the applicant, a road police officer. Under Russian law, by contrast to policewomen, a male police officer is entitled to parental leave only if his child has no maternal care for “objective reasons”. The domestic authorities found that the abandoning of the applicant’s child by her mother was not “an objective reason”, that the mother was capable of taking care of the child and that the applicant was not therefore entitled to parental leave.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the refusal of parental leave on account of the applicant’s sex amount to discrimination against him, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 (see Konstantin Markin v.   Russia ([GC], no.   30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts))? What was the applicant’s post in the police at the material time? May equivalent posts be held by policewomen?