CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s70A7D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; 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 } .s73818145 { width:19.28%; 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 } .sD0B5629 { width:41.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD8C0DB99 { width:20.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45FE4A2 { width:19.28%; 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 } .s6080864B { width:41.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3671B59B { width:20.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 22 September 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27729/22 Kosana NIKOLIKJ-MAZNEVA and Others against North Macedonia lodged on 30 May 2022 communicated on 1 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly flawed and unduly lengthy procedural response of the domestic authorities to the death of B.M. (who was the first applicant’s husband, the second and third applicants’ father and the fourth applicant’s son) in 2009, following his treatment and several surgeries in two public hospitals. In the compensation proceedings initiated by the applicants in 2012 against the hospitals, three doctors, who (according to the applicants) worked for one of the hospitals, prepared a court-commissioned expert report, concluding that there had been no medical errors in B.M.’s treatment. The applicants’ request that the doctors be recused was dismissed, in view of their written statements that two of them had participated in B.M.’s treatment only indirectly, through performing their daily tasks in the hospital, and that the third one had not participated at all. In 2022 the domestic courts at three levels of jurisdiction dismissed the applicants’ compensation claim, relying on the expert report. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings did not ensure that the cause of B.M.’s death be determined. They further complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the experts who prepared the expert report were not impartial and that the civil proceedings were unduly lengthy.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities complied with their procedural obligations under that provision (see   Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no.   56080/13, §§ 214-21, 19 December 2017)? Did the expert evidence on which the domestic courts relied in dismissing the applicants’ compensation claim satisfy the requirement of independence (ibid., § 217; Bajić v. Croatia , no. 41108/10, §§ 87-102, 13 November 2012; compare Karpisiewicz   v. Poland   (dec.), no.   14730/09 , § 59, 11   December 2012, and, in the context of Article 8 of the Convention, Jurica v. Croatia , no. 30376/13, §§ 93-96, 2 May 2017)? In addition, were the impugned proceedings completed within a reasonable time as required by Article 2 of the Convention (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes , cited above, § 218; and Zafer Öztürk v. Turkey , no.   25774/09, § 57, 21 July 2015)?       APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Kosana NIKOLIKJ-MAZNEVA 1972 Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia Skopje 2. Ana MAZNEVA 1999 Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia Skopje 3. Mihaela MAZNEVA 2002 Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia Skopje 4. Mitra MAZNEVA 1945 Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia Skopje