CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25431/23 Nafi ISA against North Macedonia lodged on 20 June 2023 communicated on 10 July 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns allegations of racially motivated physical ill-treatment of the applicant, who is of Roma origin, by police officers, and the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into the applicant’s claim of racially motivated police brutality. On 15 September 2016, while banging on the door of a social worker’s office at the Social Care Centre in Bitola, the applicant allegedly unintentionally broke the door, prompting a police intervention. Several officers arrived, used force to restrain him, allegedly hitting and kicking him, and reportedly uttered racial slurs related to his Roma origin. He was then taken to a police station, where the ill-treatment allegedly continued. Following his release, a medical examination recorded bruising and redness on part of his head and arm. In January 2017 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against unknown police officers for the alleged racially motivated police brutality. Two levels of prosecution dismissed his complaint, with final decision dated 29 November 2023. In July 2017 the applicant lodged a compensation claim against the Ministry of the Interior (“the MOI”) under the Discrimination Act. The domestic courts, without shifting the burden of proof to the MOI, dismissed the claim at two levels, finding that the applicant had provoked the police intervention through his behaviour. On 13 April 2020 the applicant lodged a constitutional claim complaining that, as a result of discrimination on the basis of his Roma origin, the domestic courts dismissed his compensation claim. The Constitutional Court dismissed his claim, with final decision served on 22 February 2023. The applicant complains under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention (substantive and procedural limbs), as well as under Article   1 of Protocol No.   12 thereto, about the alleged ill-treatment by the police officers, the alleged ineffective investigation into it and the alleged failure of the authorities to investigate possible racist motives behind the incident. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected by the police officers on 15   September   2016 at the Social Care Centre in Bitola and during his detention attain the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see Balázs v.   Hungary , no.   15529/12, §§   47-49, 20   October 2015)?   -     If so, did the said treatment demonstrate discrimination based on his Roma origin on the part of the State agents and was it, in consequence, in breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article   3 of the Convention (see Nachova and Others v.   Bulgaria [GC], nos.   43577/98 and 43579/98, §   145, ECHR   2005-VII and Stoica v.   Romania , no.   42722/02, §§   117-18, 4   March 2008)?   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 breach of Article   14 taken in conjunction with Article   3 in its procedural aspect (see B.S. v. Spain , no.   47159/08, §§   58-60, 24   July   2012 and Škorjanec   v. Croatia, no.   25536/14, §§   52-57, 28   March   2017)?