Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.10.2010 «Дело Константин Маркин (Konstantin Markin) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KONSTANTIN MARKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 30078/06)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 7.X.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Konstantin Markin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 September 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 30078/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin ("the applicant"), on 21 May 2006.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant complained, in particular, of the domestic authorities' refusal to grant him parental leave because he belonged to the male sex.
4. On 30 August 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Novgorod. He is a serviceman in military unit No. 41480.
6. On 30 September 2005 his wife Ms M. gave birth to their third child. On the same day a court granted their application for divorce.
7. On 6 October 2005 the applicant and Ms M. entered into an agreement under which their three children would live with the applicant and Ms M. would pay maintenance for them. Several days later Ms M. left for St Petersburg where she has been living ever since.
8. On 11 October 2005 the applicant asked the head of his military unit for three years' parental leave. On 12 October 2005 the head of the military unit rejected his request because three years' parental leave could be granted only to female military personnel. The applicant was allowed to take three months' leave. However, on 23 November 2005 he was recalled to duty.
9. On 30 November 2005 the applicant brought proceedings against his military unit claiming three years' parental leave. He also challenged the decision of 23 November 2005.
10. On 28 February 2006 the applicant was disciplined for systematic absences from his place of work.
11. On 9 March 2006 the Military Court of the Pushkin Garrison annulled the decision of 23 November 2005 and upheld the applicant's right to the remaining 39 working days of his three months' leave. On 17 April 2006 the Military Court of the Leningradskiy Command quashed the judgment and rejected the applicant's claims.
12. On 14 March 2006 the Military Court of the Pushkin Garrison dismissed his claim for three years' parental leave as having no basis in domestic law. The

> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17