CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59790/15 Octavian ZELINSKI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 25 November 2015 communicated on 18 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the difference in treatment between women and men regarding rights to parental allowance. In particular, the applicant was initially granted parental allowance but was subsequently obliged to return the received payments and divested of further benefits because he was working part-time and under the domestic law at the time only mothers working part-time were entitled expressly to the said allowance. The applicant’s appeal was finally dismissed on 3 June 2015. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his sex, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention (see mutatis mutandis Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no.   30078/06, §§ 124‑27, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and the cases cited therein)?