CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 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 8 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31851/22 Lizabet NURISH against North Macedonia lodged on 17 June 2022 communicated on 20 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the authorities (which, according to the applicant, was motivated by her Roma origin) to take appropriate measures to prevent the removal of the applicant’s minor daughter from the territory of the respondent State by private persons, as well as the alleged lack of an effective investigation into that failure and the possible racial motives thereof and the alleged lack of an effective remedy in that respect. On 16 November 2018 the applicant reported to a police station that her seventeen-year-old daughter was missing and expressed concern that she might be taken out of the country with the intention of being married to an unknown individual. It is alleged that the police officers informed the applicant that there was no cause for concern, as a minor could not leave the country without parental consent, and they declined to formally register the applicant’s report. On 20 November 2018 police officers came to the applicant’s residence to take her statement. However, according to the applicant, earlier that day her daughter had already crossed the State border. The applicant submits that her daughter was taken to Germany where she was made to enter into a child marriage. In March 2019 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of the Interior (“MOI”) for misconduct against the police officers who were on duty on 16 November 2018 in the police station when she had reported the incident. She further lodged a separate criminal complaint with the prosecutor against the MOI, on account of a violation of the right to equality of the citizens due to her Roma origin, abuse of office and “unconscientious performance of duties”, arising from the authorities’ failure (for racial motives) to prevent her daughter from crossing the State’s border without parental authorisation. On 2 May 2019 the Internal Control Department within the MOI informed the applicant that her complaint of misconduct had been partially upheld and that appropriate measures would be taken against the responsible police officers. The applicant’s criminal complaint was dismissed at two levels by the prosecution authorities, by a final decision dated 28 December 2021. The prosecution authorities found that the MOI itself could not be held criminally liable. The first-instance prosecutor further found that there was no evidence to suggest that the police officers’ alleged misconduct was motivated by discrimination, and that their actions were subject to disciplinary proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention, as well as under Articles 13 and 14, read in conjunction with Article 8, that the authorities failed to take adequate and prompt measures to prevent the unlawful removal of her daughter from the territory of the respondent State, about the alleged ineffective investigation into that failure and the racial motives thereof, and about the alleged absence of an effective remedy in that regard. She further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention that the authorities’ failure to prevent her daughter from being removed from the country amounted to racial discrimination. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the State discharge its positive obligation to prevent the unauthorised removal of the applicant’s minor daughter from its territory in circumstances allegedly amounting to an abduction (see, mutatis mutandis , Chabrowski v. Ukraine , no.   61680/10, §§   104-5, 17   January   2013; and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania , no.   31679/96, §§   93-96, ECHR 2000-I)?   2. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the lack of an effective investigation into the authorities’ alleged failure to prevent the removal of the applicant’s daughter from the territory of the respondent State (see, for the general principles, M.D. and Others v. Spain , no. 36584/17, §§   56, 58-60, 28 June 2022)?   3. Has there been a violation of Article 14, taken together with Article 8 of the Convention, or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention? In particular, a) has the applicant suffered discrimination on account of the alleged failure, based on racial prejudice, of the domestic authorities to prevent her daughter’s removal (see, for the general principles, Memedova and Others v.   North Macedonia , nos. 42429/16 and 2 others, §§ 87-89, 24 October 2023)? b) do the circumstances of the case give rise to an obligation to investigate the alleged racial motives behind the State authorities’ alleged failure to prevent the removal of the applicant’s daughter? If so, has that obligation been complied with (see, mutatis mutandis , Muhammad v. Spain , no.   34085/17, §§ 63-76, 18 October 2022; and Basu v. Germany , no. 215/19, §§ 31-39, 18 October 2022)?   4.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her above complaints under Article   8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see, for the general principles, C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria , no.   1365/07, §   55, 24   April   2008)?