CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2023

.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 2 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 4666/16 Ian TOMA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 January 2016 communicated on 12 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s harassment in school on the grounds of his atheist beliefs and the lack of effective protection against such harassment on discriminatory grounds. At the time of the events, the applicant was a school pupil who refused to attend a religious education class. The applicant’s primary school teacher, M., publicly discussed in class his beliefs and how she believed they influenced his low performance in school. M. also tolerated classmates teasing the applicant for the same reason and organised debates as to the reasons behind his atheist beliefs. At the end of the school year, at a public event, M. gave all the pupils except the applicant “achievement diplomas”. The applicant’s mother complained to the school administration about M.’s harassment, which lead to a disciplinary sanction and the non ‑ renewal of M.’s contract. The applicant’s mother also complained to the Council for Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality (Equality Council), arguing that the applicant had been discriminated against by being harassed for his atheist beliefs. On 15 October 2014 the Equality Council issued a decision which found that the applicant had been discriminated against by being harassed by M. on the grounds of his atheist beliefs and ordered the school administration and the municipality to take general measures in order to accommodate all religious beliefs in school. By the same decision, the Equality Council initiated administrative offence proceedings in respect of M. on charges of discrimination in the educational process. M. appealed against this decision, but her complaint was rejected as time ‑ barred by the Buiucani District Court on 9 October 2015. In the administrative offence proceedings, on 19 October 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal finally discontinued the proceedings in respect of M., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish her guilt on the charges of discrimination in education and formal omissions in the Council’s paperwork. The applicant relies on Articles 6, 9 and 14 of the Convention, complaining that the State failed to provide him effective protection against discriminatory harassment by failing to sanction M. in administrative offence proceedings and to provide sufficient reasons for its court decisions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the treatment complained of have an adverse effect on the applicant’s psychological or moral integrity sufficient to raise an issue pertaining to his right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article   8 of the Convention, justifying the application of this provision (see for example, F.O. v. Croatia , no. 29555/13, §§ 57-61, 22 April 2021) and/or with his freedom of thought, conscience or religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention (see Grzelak v. Poland , no. 7710/02, §§   85 ‑ 87, 15   June 2010)? If so, has there been a breach of either of these provisions, in view of the State’s alleged failure to ensure protection of his enjoyment of these rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Burlya and Others v. Ukraine , no.   3289/10, §§ 160-163, 6 November 2018)?   2.     Having regard to the above facts, has the applicant suffered discrimination on the grounds of his personal convictions, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 and/or 9 of the Convention?