CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2025

.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 } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s1836E801 { width:7.78%; 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 } .s9C606856 { width:25.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8A349C12 { width:10.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA2CE6E48 { width:34.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE5627FA5 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4D0F3EF2 { width:7.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB1D709F { width:25.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s57BBE496 { width:10.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s31440432 { width:34.22%; 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 10 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 4369/23 Ganimet MAMUDOSKA and Others against North Macedonia lodged on 13 January 2023 communicated on 20 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation of the applicants, who are of Roma origin and allegedly live in the informal settlement T.B. in the town of Prilep but have different registered addresses in their identity cards. In June 2022 the Commission for Prevention and Protection against Discrimination found that the municipality of Prilep (“the municipality”) and a public enterprise in charge of water supply (“the enterprise”) directly discriminated the members of the Roma community living, inter alia , in the T.B. settlement, as they had failed to provide them with access to water. Meanwhile, the European Roma Rights Centre (“the ERRC”) lodged a civil public interest action ( actio popularis ) under the Discrimination Act against the municipality and the enterprise, arguing that 100 families living in T.B. were not connected to the public water supply and sanitation system. The domestic courts at two instances dismissed the claim, finding inter alia , that the inhabitants of T.B. lived in unlawfully constructed houses; that before they had built their houses it had not been confirmed that they could connect to the water supply and sanitation system; that they had never requested to be connected to that system; that some of them (including the first applicant) had access to water at the addresses indicated in their identity cards; and that they had not made a prima facie case that they had been discriminated against. The applicants complain, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 14, that the State has failed to provide them with adequate access to safe drinking water and sanitation, with consideration for their specific needs as members of the Roma community. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article   35 § 1, given that the situation giving rise to the application was examined by the domestic courts only in the framework of the public interest action brought by the ERRC (see Kósa v.   Hungary   (dec.), no.   53461/15, §§   55-63, 21 November 2017; X and Others v. Albania , nos. 73548/17 and   45521/19, § 64, 31 May 2022; and Ugulava v. Georgia (no. 2) , no.   22431/20, § 42 in fine , 1 February 2024)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ alleged lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation in T.B. (cf. Hudorovič and Others v. Slovenia , nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14, §§ 139-159 and 163-167, 10 March 2020)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 3 and/or 8?       APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Ganimet MAMUDOSKA 1993 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Prilep     2. Seljadin ASANOSKI 1975 3. Nedjibe EMINOSKA 1953 4. Gjulshen RUSTEMOSKA 1970