CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA5F9189C { width:47.64%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF815CF3A { width:8.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE5627FA5 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7C0B0EBB { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7E0D939 { width:8.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B7A7BB6 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF53FD7AF { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 29 April 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10318/22 N.N. and Others against North Macedonia lodged on 12 February 2022 communicated on 15 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the domestic courts to transfer to the first applicant the custody over her two minor children (the second and third applicants) and the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to sanction the alleged violence against the children by their father, the first applicant’s former husband (J.N.). Since the first applicant’s and J.N.’s divorce, the latter has custody over their children. In July 2018 the Social Welfare Centre (“the Centre”) ordered J.N., among others, not to subject the children to psychological violence. In May 2019 the Centre made a similar order in respect of both J.N. and the first applicant. In October 2019 the civil courts dismissed the first applicant’s request for a protection order, following an incident in which J.N. had allegedly left the children at home alone and hungry. In September 2021 the criminal courts acquitted J.N. of the offence of child neglect and abuse, concerning another incident in which he had allegedly chased the children out of the house where they lived together. In custody proceedings initiated by the first applicant, the first-instance court heard the children (who stated that they wished to spend more time with their mother) and experts of the Centre and admitted documentary evidence, including the Centre’s reports. In September 2021 the courts at three levels finally dismissed the first applicant’s request to transfer to her the custody over the children. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that, in all domestic proceedings, the authorities failed to sanction J.N.’s behaviour towards the children. Under Article 8 of the Convention they complain that in the custody proceedings the domestic courts relied mostly on the Centre’s opinion and did not properly assess the children’s statements. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the State authorities complied with their positive obligations under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention to protect the second and third applicants from the alleged violence inflicted by J.N.? In particular, did they conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of violence by J.N. (see M. and M. v. Croatia , no. 10161/13, §§ 131 et seq., ECHR 2015 (extracts); D.M.D. v. Romania , no. 23022/13, §§ 40 et seq., 3   October   2017; and, mutatis mutandis , Malagić v. Croatia , no.   29417/17, §§ 56-60, 17 November 2022)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see M.   and   M.   v. Croatia , cited above, §§ 176 et seq.; Petrov and X v. Russia , no.   23608/16, §§ 98-102, 23   October 2018; and Suur v. Estonia , no.   41736/18 , §§ 71 et seq., 20 October 2020; see also, mutatis mutandis , Bîzdîga v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 15646/18, §§ 56-8 and 67, 17   October 2023)? In particular, were the reasons adduced by the domestic courts in the custody proceedings relevant and sufficient in the circumstances? Was the decision ‑ making process fair and such as to ensure due respect for the various interests safeguarded by Article 8, notably the best interests of the children?       APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. N.N. 1981 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Skopje 2. L.N. 2009 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Skopje 3. V.N. 2008 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Skopje