(TRANSLA T/ON) THE LAW (Extract) I . The applicant complains that her conviction for having engaged professionally in homosexual relations constitutes an interference with her right to respect fo r her private life. She invokes Article 8 para . 1 of the Convention, which provides : "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and h is correspondence. " It is true that the right to respect fo r private life enshrined in Article 8 para . 1 of the Co nvention guarantees the individual a sphere within wh ich he can pursue freel y the development and fulfilment of his personality and that, to this end, the i nd ividual must be able to establish relations of different kinds, including sexual relations, with other persons (Brüggemann and Scheuten v . Fed . Rep. of Germany, Comm . Report 12.7 .77, D .R . 1 0 p. 100, para. 55) . The choice of affirming and assumi ng, one's sexual identiry consequenUy comes under the protection of Arti cle 8 para. 1 of the Convention (No. 9369/ 81 , U .R . 32 p. 220 ; No . 5935/72, D .R. 3 p. 46), and whenever the State promulg,ites or applies rules affecting the behaviour o f the individua l within this sphere it is interfering with his private life and nwst res pect che condit ions for restriction provided for in Article 8 para . 2 of the Convention (Brüggemann and Scheuten, Comm. Report, loc. cit. ; No. 8307/78, U .R. 21 p . 116 ; Eur. Court H .R ., Dudgeon judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 18 et seq., para. 40 et seq.). The Commission observes, however, that in this case the sexual relations which occasioned the conviction of the applicant were engaged in professionally in relurn for remuceratiun . It funher notes that the applicant made contact with her partners by adve rtising in specialised magazines. 180 The Commission considers that sexual relations w hich , as here, res ulted from a wish for remune ratio n and were engaged in profess ionally amounted to prostitution and do not belong to the sph ere of private life protected by Article 8 para. 1 of the COnve nlion. [t follows that the coniplaint as submitted is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Come ntion , and in particular with [hose of Article 8 . 1 8 1