CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 8 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31859/23 Neat RUSTEM and Sedat JASHAR against North Macedonia lodged on 11 August 2023 communicated on 19 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deaths of the applicants’ wives (of Roma origin), in their ninth month of pregnancy, and the loss of their unborn babies, which according to the applicants were caused by delayed and inappropriate medical care (due to racial bias) provided by two public hospitals. According to the applicants, after the first applicant’s waters broke on 26 March 2020, she was examined by a gynaecologist at the Ohrid Hospital, but was told to return home. On 29 and 30 March 2020 she reported again to the hospital, but was again told to go home. On 31 March 2020 her condition worsened, and she was transported to a hospital in Skopje where she was tested for COVID-19 and left to wait for over six hours without treatment. When she was examined, her unborn baby was already dead. She underwent surgery, but passed away that evening. The applicants further submit that the second applicant’s wife was examined on 18 September 2020 at the Skopje Hospital, but was released although her blood test results were concerning. Later the same day she started bleeding and returned to the hospital, where she was informed that her unborn baby had died. She too underwent surgery, but passed away the next day. In November 2020 the applicants lodged with the public prosecutors’ office a joint criminal complaint against the Ministry of Health and the hospitals, for medical malpractice ( несовесно лекување болни ), failure to provide medical assistance, serious offences against health, and violation of the equality of citizens ( повреда на рамноправноста на граѓаните ). The applicants contended, inter alia , that a member of the first applicant’s family had heard staff members of the Ohrid hospital utter inappropriate comments about Roma women. The applicants further submitted that there had been no gynaecologist working in the predominantly Roma-populated municipality in which the second applicant’s wife had lived. It appears that the applicants have never received any response to their criminal complaint. Under Articles 2 and 3, in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the applicants complain that due to their Roma origin, their wives were denied timely access to life-saving treatment, which resulted in their deaths and the loss of their unborn children, as well as that the authorities failed to investigate those events and the potential racial bias involved. Lastly, the applicants complain under Article 13 that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     (a) Did the circumstances of the case require a criminal-law response (see, for example, Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 157-161, 25 June 2019; Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal   [GC], no.   56080/13 , §§ 214-16 and 232, 19 December 2017;   see also, mutatis mutandis , Koceski v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   (dec.), no.   41107/07, §§ 20-25, 22   October 2013, and V.V.G. v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   (dec.), no.   55569/08, § 43, 20 January 2015)? If not, have the applicants exhausted the available and effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention?   (b) If so, did the respondent State breach its positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention by denying the applicants’ wives medical treatment, which resulted in their deaths and the loss of their unborn children (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes , cited above, §§ 186-96;   Asiye Genç v.   Turkey , no. 24109/07, §§ 65-87, 27 January 2015; and Mehmet   Şentürk and   Bekir   Şentürk v. Turkey , no.   13423/09, §§ 85-97, ECHR 2013)?   (c) Did the State comply with its procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention? Did the criminal investigation into the events satisfy the conditions of promptness and adequacy as required under the procedural head of Article 2 (see, among many authorities,   Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase , cited above, §§   164-67;   and Lopes de Sousa Fernandes , cited above, §§ 218 and   233)?   2. (a) Have the applicants exhausted the available and effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints under Article 14 of the Convention, concerning the alleged racial motives for the delayed and inappropriate medical care provided to their wives, and concerning the failure to investigate those racial motives? The parties are invited to submit examples of any relevant domestic case-law.   (b) If so, was the alleged denial of medical care to the applicants’ wives due to their Roma ethnic origin, in breach of Article 14 taken together with Article 2 of the Convention?   (c) Has there been a violation of Article 14, taken together with Article 2 of the Convention, on account of the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to investigate any racial motives behind the alleged delayed and inappropriate medical care provided to their wives (see, mutatis mutandis ,   Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§   160 ‑ 68, ECHR 2005-VII )?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the purposes of the above complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, taken alone and/or in conjunction with Article 14 thereof, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example,   Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu , cited above, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2014; and   Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy   [GC], no.   23458/02 , § 336, ECHR 2011 (extracts))?