CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2019

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sB74BB8EE { width:12.66%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sFF2DB73F { width:29.88%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sFAA1210A { width:18%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s15BF30AD { width:16.38%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s96C99341 { width:23.1%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sE9B83E8A { width:12.66%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4B2D2737 { width:29.88%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF843FFA2 { width:18%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD0EF007 { width:16.38%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB8853D40 { width:23.1%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8C02E15 { width:12.66%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s173D9AF { width:29.88%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sFF5A92FA { width:18%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s69CC386D { width:16.38%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s97A26FB8 { width:23.1%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 }   Communicated on 2 September 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 34791/17 NGO KHAM DELCHEVO and others against North Macedonia lodged on 8 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are a non-governmental organisation and two individuals of Roma origin. The application concerns a situational test where the second and third applicant attempted to leave the respondent State by bus in order to test the conduct of the border authorities. Upon their arrival at the border-crossing point they were interviewed at length by the border police officers but eventually allowed to leave the respondent State. The three applicants jointly brought a civil action against the State alleging a violation of their freedom of movement and the principle of non-discrimination, claiming that the second and third applicant had been singled out from the group of passengers, forced to leave the bus, interviewed and insulted by the border police officers owing to their Roma origin. They offered the testimonies of the individual applicants and other witnesses in support. The domestic courts, albeit largely accepting the facts as presented in the claim, dismissed it partly, holding that the interviews had been part of standard border police procedures and the applicants’ claims of discrimination had been ill-founded. Moreover, the fact that they were allowed to cross the border certified that their freedom of movement or their right not to be discriminated had not been violated. The part of the action by which the applicants sought that the State be held responsible for systemic discrimination of nationals of Roma origin was rejected for lack of standing.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the first applicant (the applicant organisation) have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of its complaint concerning the principle of non-discrimination? Do the second and third applicants have victim status in respect of their complaints concerning their freedom of movement and the principle of non-discrimination, in view of the fact that their actions were part of a test situation and given that they were allowed to leave the State?   2.     If so, were the actions of the border police officers, in particular their treatment of the second and third applicant upon their arrival on the border-crossing point, compatible with Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention right to leave their country on the grounds of their Roma origin, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 and/or Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4?   APPENDIX     No. Applicant Date of birth Nationality Place of residence Representative 1 NGO KHAM DELCHEVO   of North Macedonia Delchevo Helsinki Committee For Human Rights 2 Senat BAJRAMOVSKI of North Macedonia Kichevo Helsinki Committee For Human Rights 3 Ezgan MEMEDOV of North Macedonia Delchevo Helsinki Committee For Human Rights