CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 3 July 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31016/17 Fatmir MEMEDOV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 18 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of racially motivated physical abuse of the applicant, who is of Roma origin, by police officers. They allegedly kicked and punched him inflicting on him bodily injuries, which were identified and qualified in several medical reports. They also allegedly subjected him to racial insults. An investigation opened soon after the incident against the applicant on account of his having assaulted a police officer was subsequently stayed due to lack of evidence. The public prosecution office has not finally decided the applicant’s complaint of 28   March 2014 accusing police officers (of whom 6 officers were identified) of torture, ill-treatment, violence, unlawful deprivation of liberty, racial and other discrimination. On 17 March 2017 the first-instance public prosecutor rejected the applicant’s complaint for lack of evidence, notwithstanding that it was established that “[he] had sustained visible bodily injury in the incident”. That decision relied on material evidence provided by the police. No oral evidence was taken from the applicant, the police officers concerned and the eye-witnesses proposed by the applicant. The applicant challenged that decision before the higher public prosecutor. Those proceedings, as well as compensation proceedings that the applicant brought against the Ministry of the Interior and the public prosecution office on the basis of the Act against Discrimination, are underway. Since 2015 the applicant has lived in Germany where he sought asylum for the alleged harassment by the police related to his criminal complaint. He also referred to several international and national reports regarding the situation of Roma in the respondent State and incidents of police brutality and excessive use of force by law-enforcement officials against Roma.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected on 5   May 2013 during police intervention in a Romani neighborhood in Skopje demonstrate discrimination (based on the applicant’s Roma origin) on the part of the State agents and was, in consequence, in violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, or of Article 1 of Protocol No.   12?   2.     Have the authorities failed in their duty to carry out an effective investigation into the possible racist motives for the acts complained of, in violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 in its procedural aspect, or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?